The only way to prove is warm blood

well I sit here week after week, month after month and I read story after story,
article after article, movie after movie, document after document, pictures after
pictures and heard the discussion and rants from both sides of the 9/11 issue.
I've been doing this for 2 years now and have come to the conclusion. The ONLY
WAY the truthers are gonna prove their theory of conspiracy and controlled
demolitions is to produce warm blooded human beings who were involved in
9/11 and have a story to tell the world. It's gonna take individuals to come
forth and say they were involved or knew about it from some paperwork that
came across their desk or a mistaken e-mail sent to the wrong person or such
as that. It's gonna take REAL LIVE PEOPLE (co-conspirators) to actually prove
your theory. And then good freakin luck keeping them alive long enough to
testify in court. Cuz anybody who was involved in it and ARE NOT DEAD already
know that by coming forth, it is a death sentence for them and their families.
But maybe, just maybe you can find a disgruntled employee somewhere who
has an axe to grind with TPTB and want revenge. Barring that, I doubt you ever
find your smoking gun. Cuz it's gonna take warm blood to get the proof you need.

Best wishes

It would help to have a whistle-blower come forth, however I disagree.

There is tons of video, and tangible evidence to prove a CD.

Just the mechanics of WTC 7 falling straight down is impossible by fire
alone.

Fire weakens steel as it eats up fuel sources. If the fire was burning all
day, the tower should have gradually and asymmetrically collapsed.

There is no fuel source available in that building that could burn for more
than a few hours. There would (must) have been areas on certain floors
(with the small fires) that were colder than other areas.

As the fire weakens, the steel cools. There is no possible scenario for
the fire to burn intensely all day, and fail every connection of every column
simultaneously.

reply to post by turbofan

Just the mechanics of WTC 7 falling straight down is impossible by fire

If collapsed in such a nice neat pile - why then did the debris smash
into 30 West Broadway ?






Barclay Street is a 4 LANE HIGHWAY - debris would need to travel at
least 75 feet to smash into 30 West Broadway

You lose again....

reply to post by thedman


Oh my 75 feet, spilled over onto the road from a pile of debris by a once 47 story building!

What a joke.

Originally posted by turbofan
Oh my 75 feet, spilled over onto the road from a pile of debris by a once 47 story building!

What a joke.

This, from the same person fighting tooth and nail against the concept that wreckage from the once 110 story north tower could spill over and crush WTC 6 one block away and hit WTC 7 two blocks away.

"What a joke" is damned right.

Originally posted by turbofan

There is tons of video, and tangible evidence to prove a CD.

As much as I'm on your side, there obviously isn't otherwise the whole thing would have come out by now.

I agree with the OP and that's just never gonna happen.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


This coming from the guy that doesn't even know the timeline of collapse;
gets caught ... yet still believes his own version?

You are comparing an explosion, with an implosion...why?

[edit on 4-9-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan
This coming from the guy that doesn't even know the timeline of collapse;
gets caught ... yet still believes his own version?

Would you mind terribly backing this claim up with some evidence? *I* was the one trying to get *you* to understand everyone reported the first explosion in WTC 7 happened at 10:28. According to your wacky story, WTC 7 exploded, then the towers collapsed, then magically reassembled itself, and then fell *again*, hitting WTC 7 and causing it to explode *again*. Only one guy on the entire planet ever saw this happen and of course that's the guy you believe, rather than the rest of the planet, becuase that's the same version you yourself want to believe. Pull the other leg, why don't you.

This is neither here nor there, as this is a conversation relating to a different thread.

You are comparing an explosion, with an implosion...why?

Don't change the subject. In one case you try to claim that it's impossible for fallign wreckage to hit a nearby building, in your attempts to refute my statement, then you spontaneously develop amnesia and now admit that wreckage could in fact hit neighboring buildings, in your attempt to refute someone else's statement. The difference between explosion, implosion, or beign zapped by heat rays from Martian war machines is inconsequential- Falling wreckage still whacked nearby buildings.

Why the double standard?