CNN 9/11 footage that offers good non-conspiracy evidence

Originally posted by coughymachine
And maybe herein lies the answer to a question someone (you?) asked earlier in thread about why WTC-7 was left so long before collapsing. If it was a controlled demolition, to have brought it down sooner would have raised more questions than answers, since without the 6-7 hour fires, the 'steel weakening' argument would have no foundation.

And here's why that doesn't fly.

If it was controlled demolition, they would have brought it down as the main tower that hit it was collapsing (or IMMEDIATELY after) when no one could see what was going on.

If they had done it then, nobody would've been able to know what happened and would've just assumed that much of the falling tower took WTC 7 down with it.

As it was, if it was controlled demolition, it's not logical that they waited 6-7 hours. They couldn't have known how the fire would spread, whether the firemen would be able to contain it, how much damage the main tower falling would do to it, etc. There's just WAY too many things that would have to be left to chance.

They would've brought it down as the main tower was falling.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

Here is the meteorite thing Video Explain this one please listen to the words as well its in English so it is much easier for you to understand than for me:
youtube.com...

Good luck with the explanation...

Originally posted by piacenza
Here is the meteorite thing Video Explain this one please listen to the words as well its in English so it is much easier for you to understand than for me:
youtube.com...

Good luck with the explanation...

Got anything that's not youtube? Can't see it at work.

sorry only on youtube dont worry I will remind it to you tonight.
If any other debunkers have a plausible explanation for it on the meanwhile...

DId you actually watch and listen to the video. It explains that it is 4 compressed floors of the WTC, and that typeface is imprinted in the steel it got so hot. These buildings collapsed, and this is a smoldering remnant of that day. I am sure that there are ashes from bodies burned in where they were killed also. It is described as meteor-like. Kind of like how the media called the plane impacts 'explosions', which could lead one to think bomb, not airplane. Word association. It is an easy form of mind control. Like hearing the same song over and over until you like it. If you hear the same thing over and over, you believe it without looking at evidence.

This thread however is about the video of the impacts. John Lear, are you out there? Can you explain how holography was used here. AS a viewer, you can see the plane pass behind the tower and impact, and they "reporters" mistakenly think that there is an explosion within the tower. This goes on fora few minutes until they realize that it is a second plane.

THere is no conspiracy folks. It was just planes.

lol exactly please how did you reach those temperature?

Sorry what a stupid question jet fuel correct?

Originally posted by esdad71
DId you actually watch and listen to the video. It explains that it is 4 compressed floors of the WTC, and that typeface is imprinted in the steel it got so hot. These buildings collapsed, and this is a smoldering remnant of that day. I am sure that there are ashes from bodies burned in where they were killed also. It is described as meteor-like. Kind of like how the media called the plane impacts 'explosions', which could lead one to think bomb, not airplane. Word association. It is an easy form of mind control. Like hearing the same song over and over until you like it. If you hear the same thing over and over, you believe it without looking at evidence.

This thread however is about the video of the impacts. John Lear, are you out there? Can you explain how holography was used here. AS a viewer, you can see the plane pass behind the tower and impact, and they "reporters" mistakenly think that there is an explosion within the tower. This goes on fora few minutes until they realize that it is a second plane.

THere is no conspiracy folks. It was just planes.

By the way the explanation that you did not give its simply pathetic how can you stand yourself?
Shame on you.

No , jet fuel caused the initial fires. It was the contents of the buildiings, that were still burning when the towers collapsed, that we collected under the towers. THe fires burned for months, or does no one remember the pictures, and the news reports?

Intense heat for months after an event like that could easily have caused a piece of molten metal that size. I am unsure why it is so hard to accept only the concept if not believe the idea.

Again, this is not the WTC meteorite thread. It is about the video. I am still waiting for a holograph believer to help me to understand how this could have been pulled off. BTW< DARPA has more important things to do to work on it, so who developed it?

1. How do I go to work for the government and post things like this?
2. How much do I get paid?
3. Do straw man arguments offer as much pay as your stubborn arguments that have no impetus upon many other videos and interviews distinct from your positioned CNN video?
4. Do you serious believe your own arguments?
5. Have you read the some reasonable scope of the entire brunt of 911 positions from hundreds of websites?
6. Do you realize the government position which your argue as "non-conspiracy," is with careful examination a weak "conspiracy theory," itself?
7. Do you seriously believe the government position, and its tsunami of subsequent mendacities positioned as a consequence of its own weak story?

Is it not true as Voltaire said "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities?" This is an historical pattern.

No one is making anyone believe anything in the internet discussions positioning 911 as an inside job. Most all the conversant debates have to do with documented facts, for example PNAC stating the absurd need for a "New Pearl Harbor," as integral to its own Hegelian problem-reaction-solution goals. Your argument positions only an interpretation of a CNN video, which is not the only interpretation.

I can only conclude by careful reasoning and logic that your interpretations are insufficiently convincing.

Thoughtfully speaking, I do not necessarily suggest you yourself are being paid for your writings here, but that others are in many other internet locations.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by SkipShipman
1. How do I go to work for the government and post things like this?
2. How much do I get paid?
3. Do straw man arguments offer as much pay as your stubborn arguments that have no impetus upon many other videos and interviews distinct from your positioned CNN video?
4. Do you serious believe your own arguments?
5. Have you read the some reasonable scope of the entire brunt of 911 positions from hundreds of websites?
6. Do you realize the government position which your argue as "non-conspiracy," is with careful examination a weak "conspiracy theory," itself?
7. Do you seriously believe the government position, and its tsunami of subsequent mendacities positioned as a consequence of its own weak story?

Instead of throwing a blanket accusation that he's ignorant and/or a government disinformation agent, why don't you actually tell us where he's wrong if you think so.

3000 people died because of a fanatical view of religion, if that is the case then explain why was M Atta snorting coke and visiting strip clubs??

Originally posted by Rotator
3000 people died because of a fanatical view of religion, if that is the case then explain why was M Atta snorting coke and visiting strip clubs??

Hey, you know what? Most reason I've seen whiterabbit give as to why WTC7 couldn't have been a demo: he thinks it would've made more sense to come right down after WTC1.

And I also agree that if Atta was a fundamentalist fanatic, then yeah, he wouldn't have been snorting coke in strip clubs.


If whiterabbit attacks your logic there then he's being hypocritical for using the same bad logic himself. "Should" is a concept often separate from reality.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Hey, you know what? Most reason I've seen whiterabbit give as to why WTC7 couldn't have been a demo: he thinks it would've made more sense to come right down after WTC1.

Aside from the other reasons I gave about thermite evidence everywhere, the insanely loud explosion that explosives would've brought, and the amount of people that would've had to have been paid off? Yeah, other than that, I got nothing.

And it IS illogical to think that, if it were a controlled demolition, they would've waited as long as they did to bring down WTC 7. Why would they wait and gives you guys the ammo? They're smart enough to pull off this huge conspiracy, but they didn't have enough sense to demo the building at the right time?

I love how they can be alternately evil geniuses and complete morons.

And I also agree that if Atta was a fundamentalist fanatic, then yeah, he wouldn't have been snorting coke in strip clubs.

Some of the hijackers tried to get a hooker. What's your point? It's not just Christians that are big flaming hypocrites. See Catholic priests.

If whiterabbit attacks your logic there then he's being hypocritical for using the same bad logic himself.

That doesn't even make sense.

Originally posted by SkipShipman
1. How do I go to work for the government and post things like this? 57k a year
2. How much do I get paid? you get audited when i track your IP
3. Do straw man arguments offer as much pay as your stubborn arguments that have no impetus upon many other videos and interviews distinct from your positioned CNN video? This is a post about the validity of claims of the towers not bieng struck by planes. I see planes. Do you see planes?
4. Do you serious believe your own arguments? I don't beleive them, I create the answers
5. Have you read the some reasonable scope of the entire brunt of 911 positions from hundreds of websites? The 9/11 commision report to all of prisonplanet/truth/what really happened...yes, everything in the scope including non fiction books including 102 minutes, fantastic book.
6. Do you realize the government position which your argue as "non-conspiracy," is with careful examination a weak "conspiracy theory," itself?
Start a thread about this and i will be glad to assist you in figuring it out.
7. Do you seriously believe the government position, and its tsunami of subsequent mendacities positioned as a consequence of its own weak story? You already know the answer to this one....

Is it not true as Voltaire said "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities?" This is an historical pattern.


[edit on 15-3-2007 by SkipShipman]

Atta was a fanantic, and many fanantics are hypocrites. Do what you tell others not too, or when not in the view of the ones who can report your actions. This is also the sign of a control freak and someone with a large ego.
As for your questions....

1. 57k a year
2. you get audited when i track your IP
3. This is a post about the validity of claims of the towers not bieng struck by planes. I see planes. Do you see planes? I do.
4. I don't beleive them, I create the answers
5. The 9/11 commision report to all of prisonplanet/truth/what really happened...yes, everything in the scope including non fiction books including 102 minutes, fantastic book.
6. Start a thread about this and i will be glad to assist you in figuring it out.
7. You already know the answer to this one....

Is it not true as Voltaire said "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities?" This is an historical pattern.

Is it not true that Buddha said "To conquer oneself is a greater task than conquering others" In other words, believe in yourself and what you can determine as truth.

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Is it not true as Voltaire said "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities?" This is an historical pattern.

Voltaire also said that insanity is simply reasoning correctly from an incorrect premise.

Here is the foundation that the Truth Movement argues from:

1) The government couldn't invade a country without public support.

FALSE - If this was true we would have pulled out of Iraq this past year, or there would have been another massive "False Flag" to recoup the support that has eroded since 9/11. George W. Bush has NEVER needed support to do ANYTHING. It is truly impossible to argue otherwise.

2) The government made a ton of money off of 9/11.

FALSE - Considering that, according to the most conservative theories, approximately 500 individuals from up to seven different agencies were on the payroll for this operation, any one individual would have a pretty thin slice of pie.

3) The government is willing to slaughter its own people for money and power.

FALSE - There are too many other shady ways to generate money and power. Pulling an operation like 9/11 instead of simply taking payments to raise logging restrictions in Oregon is like choosing magic beans over Microsoft stock.

I can only conclude by careful reasoning and logic that your interpretations are insufficiently convincing.

Like I said, it's not your reasoning I question...it's your foundation.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Essedarius]

Originally posted by Essedarius
1) The government couldn't invade a country without public support.

FALSE - If this was true we would have pulled out of Iraq this past year, or there would have been another massive "False Flag" to recoup the support that has eroded since 9/11. George W. Bush has NEVER needed support to do ANYTHING. It is truly impossible to argue otherwise.

But you do need the support of the congress. And seeing that they managed to pull off two thirds of what PNACs documents for "securing assets in the middle east" said they wanted to accomplish, I'd say that was a success.

2) The government made a ton of money off of 9/11.

FALSE - Considering that, according to the most conservative theories, approximately 500 individuals from up to seven different agencies were on the payroll for this operation, any one individual would have a pretty thin slice of pie.

But you know who did benefit from 9/11? Haliburton, and pretty much every defense contractor that lobbys for the republicans, and hell, alot of the CIA.
And Silverstein.

3) The government is willing to slaughter its own people for money and power.

FALSE - There are too many other shady ways to generate money and power. Pulling an operation like 9/11 instead of simply taking payments to raise logging restrictions in Oregon is like choosing magic beans over Microsoft stock.

Agree with this one. The government wouldnt slaughter people over just money and power, but they would for idealogical issues. A "greater cause." which was what PNAC (the people currently in the administration) were all about.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Aside from the other reasons I gave about thermite evidence everywhere, the insanely loud explosion that explosives would've brought, and the amount of people that would've had to have been paid off? Yeah, other than that, I got nothing.

You stand up your own pins to knock down. Thermite would not have to have been everywhere as long as it was nanoenergetic military grade, and witnesses did report explosions ripping from WTC7's base as it began collapsing. So you really do have nothing.

And it IS illogical to think that, if it were a controlled demolition, they would've waited as long as they did to bring down WTC 7.

So? You about to jump to an erroneous conclusion and declare that WTC7 could therefore not have possibly been a controlled demolition?

This is the logic I'm comparing to the "the hijackers snorted coke at a club therefore they didn't hijack the planes". You see how you can't jump to a conclusion like that? Same thing with you: you can't jump to your conclusion here, it isn't logical. That was the point I made in my last post.

Why would they wait and gives you guys the ammo? They're smart enough to pull off this huge conspiracy, but they didn't have enough sense to demo the building at the right time?

They didn't have sense enough to bring it down asymmetrically, or think of a cover story that made any sense, either, but you still buy it, and most people haven't even heard of WTC7. Doesn't sound like your bitching and moaning would have made that much difference to them either way.

Some of the hijackers tried to get a hooker. What's your point? It's not just Christians that are big flaming hypocrites. See Catholic priests.

You didn't get my point.

If whiterabbit attacks your logic there then he's being hypocritical for using the same bad logic himself.

That doesn't even make sense.

And this is further proof that you didn't get my point.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by bsbray11]

PNAC has nothing to with this footage. It is a think tank. Have you ever taken the time to read their website? You might agree with one or two things, but that make you a neo-con? Choose the path you take wisely.

You don;t want to watch the footage because PNAC controls the media, or is that the Jews? Not sure anymore since anything is possible. Maybe it is Thetans from Jamaica disguised using holograpy who control the Senate sending mindwaves to control our habits during TV watching of reality shows. Sounds far fetched, so does holographic planes or missles hitting the WTC.

ok, for a moment ill pretend that wtc7 was a CD. remember im pretending.

now, ive used a lot of demo charges of various types...where i would ahve had problems doing this job would be that id have NO way of knowing what was going to be damaged and what was going to be on fire. therefore id have had no way of making sure that my ringmains etc stayed covert.

phone lines could have been damaged, internet lines could have been damaged. straight commo wire could have been damaged.

and lets not forget what happens to any type of demo charge when exposed to high heat or fire. (i wont tell you you wont believe me look it up, ask connected. if anyone says anything other than they burn or melt, they are wrong.)

and bsb, i cant rule out nanothermite, but why do most sources say it didnt exist until after 911?

this is me being open minded and asking questions.

anyone have a logical answer?