Giuliani Confronted By 9/11 Truthers, Lies About WTC Collapse w/videos

Originally posted by Griff
Because it looks ANYTHING like they fell into themselves.

what I mean is that they fell in one place instead of falling over.
They pretty much fell straight down. See? LAY PEOPLE (unlike
professional civil engineering types) say things in different ways.

Originally posted by Griff
Maybe he should have thought about his feelings before running for president?

He has a right to complain about whack jobs chasing him around the city.

Unless they'd like to take some of the crap (false) back that they said about Kerry.

ALL the information about John Kerry that came out during the election was VETTING .. and it was all true. Deal with it.

His attempt at Vietnam deferment failed.
His 'three SCRATCHES in three MONTHs, and out' in Vietnam.
His staged 'home movies' of him in Vietnam (in the wrong uniform! )
His 'Christmas in Cambodia' lie - seering into his brain, eh? Proven false!
His dinners at one of his six mansions with Ken Lay.
His 75% absenteeism rate at the senate.
His unending flip flops.
etc etc etc

Originally posted by selfless
If it was common sense that these buildings would collapse from minority damage,...

The buildings didn't suffer 'minority damage'. It was rather major.
Watching them as they were burning, and looking at the HUGE
holes in them, many Americans figured they were coming down.
Rudy isn't the only one who stood there thinking that they were going
to fall. Being a non-civil engineer, I figured they'd fall over sideways.

Originally posted by Griff
Don't forget that "they" told everyone to go back to work in Tower 2 AFTER Tower 1 was hit.

Wrong. (BTW - this has nothing to do with Guiliani)

Those in Tower 2 were told that they could go back to work or they could leave the building if they felt the need to. The decision was up to them. Some went back up the elevators and back to work. Most started to leave the building. This was reported by the news networks during 9/11.

Originally posted by mastermind77
a "high level" conspiracy called 9-11 mentioned even by John F kennedy written on a memo in passing, that made it into a book called Presidential Doodles.

I have that book. I don't see it in there. Give me a page number.

Originally posted by LightWorker13
do you see the complete stupidity of your statement?

My statement is just fine. However, I am seeing a pattern of 'complete stupidity' (to quote you) with YOUR statements on this board. :shk: Personal attacks are not allowed. Go read the rules. Oh .. and get on topic.



[edit on 5/30/2007 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by Equinox99
youtube.com...
this one?

Wow scary stuff..

I noticed the subtitles...

Read this:

from video
Kevin Cosgrove: Name's Cosgrove. I must have told you a dozen times already. C.O.S.G.R.O.V.E. my wife thinks i'm alright. I called and said I was leaving the building and that I was fine and then --Bang..

He's talking bout an explosion - then one minute later the building collapses. He means explosion - If you can hear the way he say bang...

There is also good reason to attack that poor political person as Giuliani - and all the other mafia politicans -
This is insanity... People won't accept such a horrible truth.

Originally posted by Equinox99
youtube.com...
this one?

That would be the one I was talking about. I can't hear it at work, so could someone quote the exact quote for us? Thanks.

Edit: nevermind. The poster above me has already done so. Thanks.

[edit on 5/30/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The buildings didn't suffer 'minority damage'. It was rather major.
Watching them as they were burning, and looking at the HUGE
holes in them, many Americans figured they were coming down.
Rudy isn't the only one who stood there thinking that they were going
to fall. Being a non-civil engineer, I figured they'd fall over sideways.

Even by NIST estimates, the damage was 15% of the columns. That gives 85% left over. What was so HUGE about the holes? I don't know ANY person that thought the towers would collapse pre-collapse. Except BBC News of course.

Also, being a civil engineer, I didn't think they'd fall at all. Maybe partial collapses here and there but not the whole building down to the basements.

Those in Tower 2 were told that they could go back to work or they could leave the building if they felt the need to. The decision was up to them. Some went back up the elevators and back to work. Most started to leave the building. This was reported by the news networks during 9/11.

OK. My mistake on the semantics. They still said that they could go back to work. But, just two sentances ago, you said many Americans knew they would fall. If they knew they would fall, why were they even let back into the building? You can't have it both ways.

I have that book. I don't see it in there. Give me a page number.

Not sure about a page number but this is from prisonplanet. I know...prisonplanet.

"President Kennedy, known for separating his life into compartments, would enclose words and numbers inside circles and boxes. Events long after his death give one doodle an unintended chill: A small circle with the numbers "9-11" contained within. Just to the lower left on the page, the word "conspiracy" is underlined."

The doodle is part of a new book, Presidential Doodles, which analyses the jottings of eight commanders in chief.

What kind of astronomical coincidence could see JFK - himself the target of a conspiracy - accurately forecast a major world event decades beforehand?

Is this some kind of inside joke or is it a hat tip to the 9/11 truth movement?

One thing's for sure - it's weird.

My statement is just fine.

No, it's not. You are calling 9/11 victim's family members "radicals". Well, if wanting to know the truth of how someone's family member died is radical, then sign me up for radicalism.

This is an extract from a piece from ABC's web site, dated September 2006.

In another Kennedy doodle with seeming modern-day relevance, he wrote "9/11" repeatedly and the word "conspiracy" next to it.

He also inverted the numbers, writing "11/9."

It turns out that was the tally of a committee vote, not a foreshadowing of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

I don't know how they figured this out or how it can be verified. Any ideas?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by LightWorker13
do you see the complete stupidity of your statement?

My statement is just fine. However, I am seeing a pattern of 'complete stupidity' (to quote you) with YOUR statements on this board. :shk: Personal attacks are not allowed. Go read the rules. Oh .. and get on topic.

Some people obviously take this 9/11 thing more personal than others..

Some people involve their heart guts in this - Thats why it might seem like an attack to people who really don't care anyway..

I don't know what it is - But it's an interresting feature that goes through this 9/11 thing again and again.

And as time have passed since 2001 - it's really getting worse and worse.
This fenomena that has divided people...

And basically - It's scary to see this divided paradox.

One person tells another to go read the rules - You always trust rules FlyersFan?
It's exactly what this is about.... two groups of people -
Rules and unrest.

Rules being the corrupt media with Gulliani - And unrest being the people who feel this - who cannot sleep at night because of this paranoid situation.

The rest don't care
- cuz they learn the rules from the Media..
And they proberly sleep better at night too.
-
un-rest.
"truther virus"
Radicals
nut cases...
-
And the rest - we can define as people who follow the "rules"..
What a nice "barbie world".

First, about the orriginal topic,

There have been a lot of things that Giuliani had said about 9/11 that are suspect. As such these "conspiracy theorists" should confront him about these things. At other points in other campaigns things that candidates say are often used against them in the court of public opinion.

Now onto FlyersFan, you know I have a lot of respect for you right, I know you are intelligent and to the point...

With that let me say this.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The buildings didn't suffer 'minority damage'. It was rather major.
Watching them as they were burning, and looking at the HUGE
holes in them, many Americans figured they were coming down.
Rudy isn't the only one who stood there thinking that they were going
to fall. Being a non-civil engineer, I figured they'd fall over sideways.

The buildings structural integrity was not compromised badly enough to cause the total global collapse that we witnessed on that day. A total global collapse of the building would require much more sustained temperatures than were present during the time that the towers were on fire.

There was also not enough of the structure damaged to account for such a catastrophic failure of the buildings themselves.

Originally posted by Griff
Also, being a civil engineer, I didn't think they'd fall at all.

Like I said .. I'm not a civil engineer. NEITHER is Rudy. I figured the
towers were coming down. So did Rudy. I figured they would fall over
sideways - like when you take a chunk out of a tree when cutting it down
and it falls to the side where the chunk came out.

I can FULLY understand why Rudy said 'implode'. I, being a non-engineer, have said the same thing. It looks like the building falls in upon itself.

They still said that they could go back to work. But, just two sentances ago, you said many Americans knew they would fall. If they knew they would fall, why were they even let back into the building?

For us folks watching on TV, we had a much better picture of what was going on. AND those folks that were let back up into the second building were let back up in the first fifteen minutes after the first hit. It was chaotic.

You and I can look backwards in time and say - gee .. it's should have been obvious to everyone to get out of the second building. But at THAT TIME, not everyone in the building understood how severe the situation was. But from the accounts I have read, most folks started streaming out of the builiding. Some went back up ... and died.

What kind of astronomical coincidence could see JFK - himself the target of a conspiracy - accurately forecast a major world event decades beforehand?

I found the page. Page 141 of Presidential Doodles. The book iteself explains why 9-11 is written in his doodles.

All over the page JFK has circled - 11 and 9-11 and 11-9 and 9 and 119 and the word conspiracy is underlined. It is on a page that has notes about possible outcomes of a committee vote. There are names of congressmen some other notes about the committee vote .. which Kennedy thought would go 11-9 or 9-11.

It had nothing to do with September 11th.
He didn't forecast a major world event.
He couldn't even forecast the committee vote that was on his mind when he doodled.

SIDE NOTE - Ya'll ... if you want a REAL conspiracy based upon Presidental Doodles ... get the book and look at the LBJ doodles. He had a thing for three headed creatures ... hmmmmmm

Originally posted by whatukno
Now onto FlyersFan, you know I have a lot of respect for you right, I know you are intelligent and to the point...

I'm going to frame that!

The buildings structural integrity was not compromised badly enough to cause the total global collapse that we witnessed on that day.

I have read the opposite.



[edit on 5/30/2007 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by coughymachine
I don't know how they figured this out or how it can be verified. Any ideas?

It's in the book ... which I now have sitting right next to the computer. If anyone has any questions ... ask me. I'll give ya' page number, etc.

BTW .. I got this book for $5 at a sale at Barnes and Nobel.

Presidential Doodles (orange cover)
ISBN - (for ordering) 0-465-03266-4

[edit on 5/30/2007 by FlyersFan]

I think a deeper question is why do these speculations always seem to center around the GOP. In the immediate aftermath as the politicians all went to get their face time to show that they cared and were there. Why is it the crowds cheered Rudy and booed Hillary? Because he was there and doing something as it happened? Or perhaps it was all paid actors that were all republicans?

No, I don't like Giuliani wrapping himself in 9/11 like many politicians wrap themselves in the flag. I find it sad a pathetic that his handlers feel that is the best way to present himself to the nation as opposed to the strong work he did as mayor of NYC in cleaning up crime and working to increase positive public image of the city. I think he might do better as an independent but he needs the support of a major party to have a chance.

The need to lay blame for a guy that only sat in the chair nine months earlier after a battle with with the closest popular vote since JFK and Nixon. If Bush 43 is evil lets look at his father Bush 41 who was appointed Director of the CIA. Evil? Anyone remember him and Bill Clinton joined at the hip raising funds for the Tsumami? Good and evil rarely look like they are going steady.

Don't think events on 9/11 were on the up and up. Great, more power to you and I may beat down those that refuse your right to speak. If you have something meaningful to say. I may disagree fully with what you have to say, but if it is meaningful then you have full right to say it. But meaningless drivel that follows an agenda of a philosophical search and ideal of "truth" does nothing but paint a bad light on your cause. I say don't seek an ambigous "truth" but find, determine and present fact. We look on hippies today in a fairly positive light, but honestly at the time some of them stank to high heaven as they entered their natural earthy state. Cheering and incouraging poor behavior, well...stinks.

The video on Prison Planet is really jumpy, although the audio is alright. I think someone's been trying to mess with it.

Just another chink in the official story's armor. It's a pity that political affiliation always has to play such a part in some of our members' ability to put the pieces together. I think deep, deep down inside even they aren't buying it.

Peace

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Why is it the crowds cheered Rudy and booed Hillary?

Do you REALLY want an answer to that question?
We'll have to have this thread moved to PTS .. or to slug fest.

There is psychology involved. Rudy is not as VILE as Hillary. Hillary is capable... but vile. Rudy was mayor of NYC on 9/11 and ran for his life like everyone else. It gave him an endearing aura. If you are critical of Rudy .. you are critical of those who suffered on 9/11. The two go hand in hand ... psychologically.

Love your response to FlyersFan, LightWorker.

The fact that people are defending that slimy maggot Guiliani shows the TRUE problem we face. It's not so much the orchestrators of the event, but the people who are too scared to open their eyes. That's right, more afraid of the truth than a 6 year old is of the boogeyman.

Damn, you would think that people personally connected to 9/11 victims having views similar to the "conspiracy nuts" would make them think. But it's better to watch Fox News and worship human detritus as they lie to you every single day.

I can't wait to see the video of Rockefeller. Must be like seeing a real life vampire cower from the crucifix.

Half of the responses here are making the pre-assumption he's guiilty -- Which despite all of your 'logic', and 'evidence' has yet to ever be proven.

On another note, perhaps he snarled because he's tired of nutjobs claiming 'NWO' theories.
If I had someone come to my offices everyday becrying something about how I was in a black cabal of world-domination schemes, I'd get ticked too.

Originally posted by Iblis
Half of the responses here are making the pre-assumption he's guiilty -- Which despite all of your 'logic', and 'evidence' has yet to ever be proven.

He's a witch, burn him...silly Puritans. No wait this is about 9/11...uh, something is better than nothing and necessity is the mother of invention. Or better to have one in the hand than to shake Bush's or something like that.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Griff
Also, being a civil engineer, I didn't think they'd fall at all.

Like I said .. I'm not a civil engineer. NEITHER is Rudy. I figured the
towers were coming down. So did Rudy. I figured they would fall over
sideways - like when you take a chunk out of a tree when cutting it down
and it falls to the side where the chunk came out.

Actually, as you heat steel up, you'd be surprised how much it can weaken, so from an engineering standpoint, it isn't really surprising that it came down. I may be wrong, but depending on the type of steel, the amount it weakens can be quite large, right? And once it started to fall, with the forces and energies involved, it wasn't really surprising that it did come down.

It may have been designed to withstand it, but with a bit of weakening from fire, and considering the outside wasn't built to hold too much of it up (combined with loss of the core), it isn't really surprising it came down, is it?

Originally posted by Iblis
Half of the responses here are making the pre-assumption he's guiilty -- Which despite all of your 'logic', and 'evidence' has yet to ever be proven.

On another note, perhaps he snarled because he's tired of nutjobs claiming 'NWO' theories.
If I had someone come to my offices everyday becrying something about how I was in a black cabal of world-domination schemes, I'd get ticked too.

Yeah...

The fact that he's made millions off of it, used it for political gain, and lied about it doesn't suggest guilt at all. Yeah right; tell that to someone with half a brain.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Love your response to FlyersFan, LightWorker.

You'd love ANYONE who gave me a hard time, truthseeka.

Originally posted by apex
it isn't really surprising it came down, is it?

No, it's not. What WAS surprising is that they came straight down, instead of off to the side. Like I said... us lay folks figured the would fall sideways, like when a tree is cut down.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Like I said... us lay folks figured the would fall sideways, like when a tree is cut down.

How do you cut down a tree from the top? It collapsed exactly how I would think it would if the steel melted, the top floors pancaked straight down on themselves and inertia and mass took care of the rest. Now before some jump on me for supporting the "official" story, I do believe the government had a hand in it, more like a complacancy though, leaving the door unlocked to support their middle east agenda.

[edit on 30-5-2007 by 27jd]

Originally posted by apex
Actually, as you heat steel up, you'd be surprised how much it can weaken, so from an engineering standpoint, it isn't really surprising that it came down.

How much does steel have to heat up to weaken? BTW, NIST found only ONE piece of steel that went over 250C. That's not enough to weaken it for collapse.

And once it started to fall, with the forces and energies involved, it wasn't really surprising that it did come down.

Well, usually steel becomes malliable when heated. So, how was the initial collapse sudden when it should have been more gradual?

and considering the outside wasn't built to hold too much of it up

It was designed for 50% of the wieght. I wouldn't call that "not too much".

(combined with loss of the core), it isn't really surprising it came down, is it?

This is where you lost me. What loss of core? What was the mechanism for loosing the core?

Anyway, there are plenty of threads about this stuff. Back to G.