Popular Mechanics 911 Debunking was Dismantled & Dismembered

Originally posted by cybertroy
We've got so much evidence that tears appart the official story. We don't need a debate anymore. The facts are what is needed. We allready know the official story is a crock. Any person with decent observation skills and some mental computation could probably do a decent job of debunking the official story.

Ok, I'll bite for the umpteenth time.

What is your #1 piece of total factual, irrefutable evidence that proves to you beyond a doubt that the official story is total "crock". Please just give one for starters. I know you have so much "evidence", all I ask is just one piece.

Hit me with your best shot that proves a controlled demolition is the most obvious of choices available to what happened Sept 11th.

Originally posted by esdad71
There were also the personal effects and the rental car with the DNA of these men. At Logan they were selected for extra screening and their luggage was withheld. This would be one source of the DNA.

Esdad yes they did find their rental cars that conveniently had Koran in the rental cars as well as flight manuals in arabic? Wow i guess they were just getting in some last minute studying.

I am just saying it seems like the governemnt was just too lucky after 9/11 and not lucky at all before it.

hi am , i voted you for wats ! thank god someone else here gets it .

Originally posted by Quicksilver
I am just saying it seems like the governemnt was just too lucky after 9/11 and not lucky at all before it.

Maybe they saved up all thier luck for one big surge of luck on 9/12?

Originally posted by pavil

Ok, I'll bite for the umpteenth time.

What is your #1 piece of total factual, irrefutable evidence that proves to you beyond a doubt that the official story is total "crock". Please just give one for starters. I know you have so much "evidence", all I ask is just one piece.

Hit me with your best shot that proves a controlled demolition is the most obvious of choices available to what happened Sept 11th.

Ok lets start with this link.
www.attackonamerica.net...

Here is more proof! I can wait to see this trail.
Theres a lot of info in these brifes that a lot of people dont know about.
I do consider these brife creadible proof consider they will be used in a trail.

www.911timeline.net...

[edit on 10-4-2007 by cashlink]

"I don't like the way your framing your question!"

That was his answer to "what did they compare the original DNA against!"

That's Brilliant!

This guy wants so bad for it to not be true that he tries to dismiss that question to a seven year old asking "why?".

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!

Cash,

Those are good links.. Yes, the time it took for the building to collapse, not possible unless there was some 'assistance' removing the structure under the impact zones. Ok sillys.. you've been shown the math, now show US the math that a collapse at the speeds witnessed was possible without assistance......

Same goes for building 7 and it wasn't even struck by a plane.

Asymetrical damage (questionable) = equals symetrical collapse at just about free fall speed? Maybe in your fantasy worlds but not in this one where the laws of physics rule the day.

You 911 truth naysayers can't even get past the basics much less the more complex issues.

I've seen countless 'explanations' and mindless dribble about how building 7 could have collapsed symetrically even though it's PLAINLY OBVIOUS that it didn't sustain symetrical damage and until someone can get past this point you certainly don't have a chance with me and apparently quite a few other people I know.


Seriously, someone please explain to me in GREAT detail how building 7 could have possibly collapsed in basically perfect fashion without 'perfect' damage.. Please.. go ahead.. explain away and offer up proof.. I'll be waiting.

Here is Proof eye witness for starters.



CREDIBLE SOURCES SUCH AS NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Firefighters, law enforcement officers, and other extremely credible witnesses have also discredited the Administration's version of why the world trade center buildings collapsed on 9/11:
Reporter for USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs in the buildings brought the buildings down
NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings



911proof.com...




[edit on 10-4-2007 by cashlink]

Here is more proof,I dont think you need anymore proof than this.
Eye witness are used in court and trails for Proof!!
If thats not enough for you, then nothing in this world will convince you.
Read this link I am convince this is true.

www.williambowles.info...

Originally posted by cashlink
Here is more proof,I dont think you need anymore proof than this.
Eye witness are used in court and trails for Proof!!
If thats not enough for you, then nothing in this world will convince you.
Read this link I am convince this is true.

www.williambowles.info...

I guess if that is your best proof then nothing in the world will convince me.

That someone got burned by standing next to a freight elevator door in the ground levels does not automatically translate into "there were placed charges in the building" to me. More evidence is needed. I don't deny that his injures occured, just your reasoning how they occured is in question to me.

If they were such massive explosions, why didn't they buildings fall sooner? If this proof is so iron clad, why has it gone nowhere? Do others that were in the ground levels mention the same thing? Are there firefighter records of lots of fireman heading to the basement levels to fight fires? That to me would be telltale evidence of massive damage to the sub ground levels. Are there seismic records of the ground explosion followed by the plane impact. Looking at the records I don't see such tell tale evidence, there should be two spikes if that is true, records to not show that.

David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.
“He was burned terribly,” said Rodriguez. “The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn’t have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don’t care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below.

My car explodes 5 minutes after a motorcyle runs into to it, do I automatically assume that there was a car bomb placed on my car that caused the explosion?

Fall Sooner??? now how much sooner do you want them to fall?..i think 56 minutes and 102 minutes is wayyy too sooner and fats. In the history of steel buildings..never the fire has brought down one ...you know what the word never implies??..nothing..nada...and on sept 11 there were not just 1...it were 3...defing any physicall law...

If in reality fire did brought down the world trade center buildings, dont you think the insurance companies of all the the world would be real freak out!! they would start asking for more payments for them just for the fact that Fire alone can bring down any steel frame building...all bulding owners would have to pay more for their insurances just by know that fire did brought down the world trade dcenter buildings...why this has not happen???.

Now..i dont know but if the truth hits you in the face and you dot want to believe even with all the facts and informationg...well then you just want to be in denie and just dont think the horriftc truth that the USA gov let it happen or work with it to happen....

Originally posted by pavil
My car explodes 5 minutes after a motorcyle runs into to it, do I automatically assume that there was a car bomb placed on my car that caused the explosion?

You associate the motorcycle crash with the car explosion just like you were suppossed to.

Someone suggests that there was a bomb in the car. The cops say case closed and refuse to co-operate. More people start to ask the same questions. Pretty soon before you know it, everyone knows the real answer, as everyone that has a brain has picked apart the details of the accident that the cops were afraid to show you.

After the cops reveal that there was indeed a bomb in the car and the motorcycle was a just a diversion ment to distract, some dumb people cling to the first version and are unable to accept the new data even though the majority of the public believe the new version.

Some people will never believe, I guess.

Originally posted by pavilThat someone got burned by standing next to a freight elevator door in the ground levels does not automatically translate into "there were placed charges in the building" to me.

It didn't to Rodriguez until long after the attacks, either. Here's what he said a year later (my emphasis):

And at that terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance. And I came back running into the building...
transcripts.cnn.com...

[edit on 10-4-2007 by ashmok]

It's amazing to me that people will just discard testimony of someone actually in the building. As if he doesn't know what he's talking about and you do. I think a better example using the motorcycle analysis would be: I felt the car get hit from the other side just before the motorcycle hit me. Something hit my car causing movement just before the actual impact. Would refusing to take this part of the story into account be a good response? Or how about: No you didn't.

Mr. Rodriguez isn't denying a fire ball coming through the duct. But why are you believing this part of his story and not the rest? You can't just pick & choose the parts that fit your theory. His response clearly shows he knows the difference between a fire ball and an explosion. He is stating these are 2 seperate events. He also states 2 seperate explosions. One, he says, is just before impact and the other was the impact.

I don't think anyone will dispute that government officials will lie, have lied, and will continue to lie to the American people for whatever reason. We don't know that Mr Rodriguez will lie. So how can some people jump on the side of the people they know will lie to them and discredit someone who has never lied to them before? This has always puzzled me.

yeah. that was great.

"where did the DNA come from?"

"7 year olds can ask 'why' over and over again."

I'm sure the pentagon provides new reports. Well, let's see some pictures of WTC7. Lets see some video of the Pentagon. They can stick their reports up their ass. It won't silence us until we can see a "smoking gun" e.i.: an actual plane hitting the pentagon or 1/3 of the WTC7's bottom floors damaged. A 757 virtually disintegrated when it hit the Pentagon, yet they were able to identify most of the bodies.

The bottom 1/3 of WTC7 being taken out is nonsense. There is enough photo evidence to contradict this in public domain.

1/3 of 47 floors is between 15 and 16 floors. Sorry, but we could see up that high. It wasn't all destroyed from there down.

Even if it was, that means the imbalance is going to cause the building to tilt into that side. Not come straight down from all corners at once, accelerating as if absolutely nothing was in the way.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by cashlink
Here is more proof,I dont think you need anymore proof than this.
Eye witness are used in court and trails for Proof!!
If thats not enough for you, then nothing in this world will convince you.
Read this link I am convince this is true.

www.williambowles.info...

I guess if that is your best proof then nothing in the world will convince me.

That someone got burned by standing next to a freight elevator door in the ground levels does not automatically translate into "there were placed charges in the building" to me. More evidence is needed. I don't deny that his injures occured, just your reasoning how they occured is in question to me.

If they were such massive explosions, why didn't they buildings fall sooner? If this proof is so iron clad, why has it gone nowhere? Do others that were in the ground levels mention the same thing? Are there firefighter records of lots of fireman heading to the basement levels to fight fires? That to me would be telltale evidence of massive damage to the sub ground levels. Are there seismic records of the ground explosion followed by the plane impact. Looking at the records I don't see such tell tale evidence, there should be two spikes if that is true, records to not show that.

CREDIBLE SOURCES SUCH AS NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Firefighters, law enforcement officers, and other extremely credible witnesses have also discredited the Administration's version of why the world trade center buildings collapsed on 9/11:
Reporter for USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs in the buildings brought the buildings down
NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings.


911proof.com...





[edit on 10-4-2007 by cashlink]

Originally posted by Quicksilver
I am just saying it seems like the governemnt was just too lucky after 9/11 and not lucky at all before it.

Maybe they were lucky beforehand. It would make sense that they knew these guys and already had the evidence on them. Either the government F'ed up or they were complicit. It's funny how most all involved got raises and promotions for being incompitant.

Again can someone show me records of multiple crews of firefighters being called into the basement levels of the WTC to fight a fire and explosion? It was not a major area of focus for the firefighters at the time.

Also can you show me seismic records that indicate two sets of explosions for each of the WTC's, since both would have been "blown up the same way' right? There should be telltale seismic evidence of an explosion in the basement then followed by the planes impact on each building? Where is that evidence? How did they time the explosions in the basement so close to the aircraft's impact? How much explosive material are we talking? What kind of material?
These are reasonable questions to ask if I am to believe your theory.

I am sorry you don't like my car crash analogy but that is how your theory seems to me. You create an involved explanation to explain something that happens in a far simpler manner than you propose.

How do basement placed charges start a top to bottom collapse?

Does the FBI and the NYFD STILL say that there were explosives in the buildings at the time of the collapse? Has ANYONE found ANY piece of evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were explosives placed throughout the WTC's 1, 2 & 7?

All I ask is for hard irrefutable evidence to back up your theory.

Originally posted by pavil
There should be telltale seismic evidence of an explosion in the basement then followed by the planes impact on each building? Where is that evidence?

There is plenty of seismic activity that is documented, review and time stamped.

And full explanations.

Reports on Seismic Activity at WTC 911









911review.com...