Dangerous Truthers

reply to post by Cassius666


Wow Cassius, S&F. I can tell you have something here because of how quickly the usual dung-beetles flock to the dung-pile (so-to speak, no offense).

IMO they don't want you derailing the important (in their propaganda: don't waste a tragedy!) fact that last weekend's shooter was a "twoofer"!

Instead you provide a link to lots of folks who are good, and not psycho, and not on a no-fly list etc.....

He wasnt a truther, thats something Glenn Beck dug out and at this point, I wouldnt be surprised if people would be leaning torwards he wasnt a truther, seen as it was Glenn to say he was a truther. Palin will get most of the downfall on this one at least for the time being. But yes, they feel the need to adress the fact that many people on the inside new something does not add up.

reply to post by Cassius666

Mistrust of government was Loughner's defining conviction, the friends said. He believed the U.S. government was behind 9/11, and worried that governments were maneuvering to create a unified monetary system ("a New World Order currency" one friend said) so that social elites and bureaucrats could control the rest of the world.

(my emphasis added)

Source: ABC News

No offense against truthers, I am a proud one. Just makin' my point.

To clarify: many have tried to demonize 9/11 truth in the past and will continue to do so. I, nor have any of the truthers I have communicated with, ever advocated anything other than a call for a complete investigation of the events around 9/11. Previous investigations have been incredibly flawed, by many upstanding folk's admissions.

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings


Yes you are probably right about that. But I think its too late. Polls show an about even or greater percentage think the goverment is lying and that spin isnt going to change it.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

0:11 Low freq boom
0:12 Penthouse Kink
0:13-0:20 Roof Collapse, left to right
0:20+ Free-fall on it's own footprint.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-911-footage-reveals-wtc-7-explosions.html

"But wait!" you say, "There was no series of booms!"


This whole video is amazing, but the real good stuff is at around 2:00, BOOM BOOM BOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOM is what you hear.


For comparison. "Building Implosion - Honolulu 1994 - 7 Views!!"

9/11 was an inside job.

reply to post by igigi


Just wanted to be the 1st to let you know, G.O.D. and his boys will quickly avert everything in your post except the 2nd video...which they will claim is known world-wide to be debunked. They will tell you that the explosion you hear never happened and that those guys on the phone were scared by the boom of the fireman's voice that comes up to them. I say BS but just wanted to prepare you. BTW, not one of them has ever shown ANY proof that the boom was not geniune, they just claim as much.

reply to post by budaruskie


Oh it gets better, check out the ENTIRETY of the 3rd video.
Embed' for ease...


Believe the official narrative if you wish, but realize you're being lied to.

Very interesting. Also here are more truthters.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

If you're going to quote this conspiracy factoid then please quote it correctly. The BBC didn't report WTC7 collapsing 30 odd minutes before it did. The BBC reported THE SALOMON BROTHERS BUILDING had collapsed 30 off minutes before it did. It's patently obvious they didn't know the actual name for WTC 7 was the Salomon Brothers building and confused it with one of the other buildings. I say this because until you conspiracy people started coming out of the woodwork, *I* didn't know the proper name for WTC 7 was the Salomon Brother's building. Tell me, did *you* know the proper name for WTC 7 was the Salomon Brothers building?

Going over and over this with you gives me a headache, Dave.
I actually took a week off from this site because Im pretty sure the Motrin Im taking for it is having an adverse effect on my kidneys.
Back to the subject. Again.
What does the knowledge or lack there-of, of the buildings name have squat ioda to do with the fact the BBC announced it collapsed 20 minutes prior to the collapsing.
You see....the building DID NOT collapse.
It was reported the building DID collapse.
Then the building DID collapse.
The name has NOTHING to do with the fact. NOTHING!

Its called deflecting. Now stop it.

reply to post by igigi


Delf University School of Architecture

In the morning of May 13, 2008 a fire started in the main building of the Faculty of Architecture. The fire soon engulfed several floors of the southern wing of the building. As fire fighters struggled to control the blaze, the fire spread throughout the building which had been evacuated when the first fire alarm went off. The damage to the building proved to be extensive. Parts of the northern wing had collapsed and it was feared that the rest of the building would follow. However, the library, considered to be one of the finest in Europe and containing several thousands of books, was undamaged. This collection also included rare maps and cartography dating to the 17th Century. Delft University employed specialists to remove the books and materials due to the structural instability of the building, and as of July 4, it has been confirmed that these books and maps have been safely removed and show no signs of damage. This is believed to be due to the fact that the fire spread upwards from the 6th Floor, whereas the library was located on the ground floor. Firefighters were also able to save the historic models and furniture, including chairs by Gerrit Rietveld and Le Corbusier. The Architecture building has been completely demolished. The former main building of the TU Delft is now used to house the faculty. It is believed the fire was started by a ruptured water pipe which short circuited a coffee machine on the 6th floor of the building.

Building collapsed do to fire

Many buildings collapsed due to fire, but no high rise steel frame building collapsed due to fire yet. Not even a cheap appartment building in china collapsed due to fire. Also a video would be nice. I bet that building did not come down in an orderly way.

Originally posted by igigi
reply to post by budaruskie

 

Oh it gets better, check out the ENTIRETY of the 3rd video.
Embed' for ease...

Believe the official narrative if you wish, but realize you're being lied to.

www.youtube.com...

The collapse starts slowly, starts sacking, then gradually accelerates as stuff gives away, not like wtc 7 which is fine one moment and going down at near freefall speed the next. Also the debries cascade down following the path of least resistance.

reply to post by thedman

That building was demolished due to the fire. It did not collapse due to the fires, the conscious decision to demolish the structure is what happened.

Collection of Data on Fire and Collapse, Faculty of Architecture Building, Delft University of Technology

4. Summary: The fire and subsequent collapse of a substantial portion of the Faculty of Architectural Building at the Delft University of Technology is significant in that fire-related collapse of structures is rare, with collapse of reinforced concrete structures even more so. This case is of particular interest since the fire started as any ordinary fire might – failure of an electrical appliance – and the fuel load in the building was not particularly high – yet the fire grew so rapidly that the fire department was unable to undertake successful fire control or extinguishing activities and a significant structural collapse occurred, resulting in the need to demolish the building for a total loss on the order of €100 Million.

reply to post by Cassius666

Not even a cheap appartment building in china collapsed due to fire.

You're right , because the little red fire trucks that were setting all around , were pumping water onto it for hours .

reply to post by okbmd


Actually they werent, 40 people died.

reply to post by igigi

... collapse of a substantial portion ... , ... a significant structural collapse occurred ...

What part of that did you not understand ?

reply to post by Cassius666


Okay , maybe I'm thinking of another building . Do you have a name for the building , or a source I can look at ?

Nice, truthers are dangerous to the establishment lies. Eventually people will see through the fog. Notice how they are too afraid to really go after the truthers? It's always masked by left/right politics because if they start talking too openly about 9/11 more people will find out.

reply to post by okbmd


The video looks nothing like the WTC 7 demolition. Firstly, it is not a steel frame building, so it is no surprise to begin with it collapsed due to fire. The whole point of steelframe buildings is them NOT collapsing due to fire, imagine the armageddon in New York if a fire would spread out of control and all those skyscrapers fell. Also like I said before. That collapse looks nothing like the demolition of wtc 7. First its only a partial collapse, secondly it starts slowly as stuff gives away and picks up speed, with the debries gravitating torwards the point of least resistance, not coming straight down. And the collapse took longer than the demolition of wtc 7 too.

I can see why no other 911 denier produced that video as evidence.