9/11 : Ten Years?!

[beorhthelm]

what has the niburu theory got to do with 911? nothing.

i thought there was a common link with the illuminati, behind everything. my mistake, depends who you read probably, so many inconsistancies out there in batland. however you do write off any information or view if you percieve it to have come from a conventional or mainstream source. you show this by not even accepting a basic premise such as two planes flew in to the WTC 1+2, instead believe "80/20" that it was really holograms.

 

[brunswick]

i thought there was a common link with the illuminati, behind everything. my mistake, depends who you read probably, so many inconsistancies out there in batland. however you do write off any information or view if you percieve it to have come from a conventional or mainstream source. you show this by not even accepting a basic premise such as two planes flew in to the WTC 1+2, instead believe "80/20" that it was really holograms.

not so much holograms - the 80/20 slant into the "no planes theory" i have is based upon super-tech and digital TV manipulation (see my link on one of my posts today for more info on TV manipulation).

i do not "write off all" information from the MSM, but for when a global issue is presented with a corporate and/or political potential gain, i then always tend to lean elsewhere. I also lean elsewhere when the MSM all sing exactly the same hymn only minutes after the event or issue.

is the no planes theory any more "crazy" or out there than the one about B7 collapsing due to a small fire?

 

[DJ Leon]

[MENTION=922]DJ Leon[/MENTION]

i said i was 80/20 in thinking there where no planes at the twin towers - this is not a solid "belief" yet.



your comment about the "sheer amount of evidence" is from images your mind has seen again and again, it does not make it true - the evidence i saw for the pentagon and flight93 tell me these where 100/0 no planes.

It's not about images my mind has seen again and again. I don't just believe what I see. I have used all my faculties of reason, common sense and logic.

it is a question of how one interprets the evidence, and how much evidence - i would not call you a loon for interpreting information differently to me, all is diverse is it not. what is a loon anyway? i think you mean looney? what is a looney from your interpretation?

one thing i can guarantee you is that my connection to "reality" (as in the reality of core experience / universal laws / nature / objective truths ) is something i am more than happy to go head to head with you on.

If I say that we are all figments of Lionel Blair's imagination, for he is the only true sentient being in the world - am I just ahving a diverse opinion or am I looney. Hint: LOONEY.

 

[brunswick]

It's not about images my mind has seen again and again. I don't just believe what I see. I have used all my faculties of reason, common sense and logic.

if your reasoning and faculty of discernment presents to your mind that B7 collapsed due to two planes going into nearby buildings then we differ. but i won't give insults or question your sense of reality.

If I say that we are all figments of Lionel Blair's imagination, for he is the only true sentient being in the world - am I just ahving a diverse opinion or am I looney. Hint: LOONEY.

i do not see the relevance of this commentregarding any of my posts in this thread, but assume that it is an example of the word "looney."

 

[beorhthelm]

is the no planes theory any more "crazy" or out there than the one about B7 collapsing due to a small fire?

well yes.

no planes requires that no one witnessed planes or that they are recreated with imaginary science (key point, not unknown/secret technology), and that in their place some other explosion was created, including making a shape that looks like the imaginary plane contact (how, with inward motion), in an environment that the conspiracy holds is rigged with explosives to go off later. add to this, all the footage of the second collision has to be fabricated. hmmm.

compared to this, WTC 7 collapsed and there were fires (not "small"), the basic facts here are not disputed. how that fire started and if they where enough to bring the bulid down is a matter for architects and engineers to dispute, some say its plausible, some dont, holding explosives where used instead. theres little implausible in principle, only that there is no evidence and highly questionable if the buliding could have been rigged. at least the debate rages within the world of sciences and engineering. (although the motivation is frankly silly, couldnt they just use a shredder or a normal fire to destroy stuff, why bring the buliding down? for an insurance scam? also, the fire department advised the building was becoming unsafe and looked like it was unstable, were they in on it? as always, the conspiracy asks far more questions that it, with reason, started out trying to answer.)

 

[drew]

One can only hope that Colinz and Brunswick sit happily together in a secluded (padded) section at the Amex each wondering whether the other exists!!!

 

[NMH]

posts that you don't have an answer to just pass you by don't they!

No Mr Bold, the posts don't pass brunswick by, he doesn't have any answer so he passes them by.

These people are convinced about something ridiculous, so measured consideration would be a backpeddle, or require a complete turnabout.
They think it, so therefore it must have been. There's nothing to consider!

 

[NMH]

One can only hope that Colinz and Brunswick sit happily together in a secluded (padded) section at the Amex each wondering whether the other exists!!!

A proper "LOL" moment, thankyou drew!

 

[DJ Leon]

if your reasoning and faculty of discernment presents to your mind that B7 collapsed due to two planes going into nearby buildings then we differ."

Having been to the Twin Towers and amazed at the sheer epic nature of their size, it is certainly almost INCONCEIVABLE that when they collapsed and millions of tons of steel and debris were rained down into the surrounding area that a very nearby building collapsed due to structural damage and fire. I mean I bet those collapses barely caused a light breeze.

JESUS WEPT.

 

[DJ Leon]

if your reasoning and faculty of discernment presents to your mind that B7 collapsed due to two planes going into nearby buildings then we differ."

Having been to the Twin Towers and amazed at the sheer epic nature of their size, it is certainly almost INCONCEIVABLE that when they collapsed and millions of tons of steel and debris were rained down into the surrounding area that a very nearby building collapsed due to structural damage and fire. I mean I bet those collapses barely caused a light breeze.

JESUS WEPT.

 

[colinz]

well yes.

no planes requires that no one witnessed planes or that they are recreated with imaginary science (key point, not unknown/secret technology), and that in their place some other explosion was created, including making a shape that looks like the imaginary plane contact (how, with inward motion), in an environment that the conspiracy holds is rigged with explosives to go off later. add to this, all the footage of the second collision has to be fabricated. hmmm.

Could you give some names as to who these witnesses were. I've given you a bit of a heads up if you start at the 9min.15csec. mark.

 

[drew]

Could you give some names as to who these witnesses were. I've given you a bit of a heads up if you start at the 9min.15csec. mark.

What a crock of shit. So, within minutes, employees of news gathering organisations are who have seen something are ringing their bosses to give their account. Had they all had independent witnesses you would be suggesting there was a conspiracy because they got them lined up too quickly.

Here's a list of witnesses for he pentagon but as you don't know any of them personally no doubt you don't believe any of them!

9-11 Research: Eyewitnesses Accounts

 

[beorhthelm]

Could you give some names as to who these witnesses were. I've given you a bit of a heads up if you start at the 9min.15csec. mark

odd, answering your own question like that. i think i said earlier, if you want to believe in this hocus pocus that isnt actually possible, go ahead with your warped sence of reality. i suppose the problem is so many people saw it and it was so self evident that no one really went round taking witness statements from half of Manhatten and surrounding boroughs. if i presented list with the accounts of Jason Brown, Mary Garcia etc, you'd find that they worked for [insert company] so are part of the fabrication. i recall there's a list of 50 NY firemen who saw the impact or plane debris at the scene, no doubt you will claim this is holograms they saw; there are photos of pieces of plane, a wheel being the most distintive, at the foot of the towers, you would believe this is planted. enjoy yourself.

 

[colinz]

Had they all had independent witnesses you would be suggesting there was a conspiracy because they got them lined up too quickly.

But they didn't did they. It was rectified at a later date.
When there were independant witnesses featured in clips aired at a later date.

This being one of the most famous ones. It was extended (at the beginning) years later to try & give the guy some identity. An independant witness who becomes a Fox freelancer.


Already the WTC area has been labelled ground zero.

 

[brunswick]

add to this, all the footage of the second collision has to be fabricated. hmmm............
.......why bring the buliding down? for an insurance scam? also, the fire department advised the building was becoming unsafe and looked like it was unstable, were they in on it?

the second collision footage was aired 24 hours after the event - plenty of time for creation.

B7 must have been either an insurance scam or was the command centre for the days events; the evidence of this needed to be destroyed. To set off all the explosives (if it were not super-tech) then the command centre would have had to have been close.

Having been to the Twin Towers and amazed at the sheer epic nature of their size, it is certainly almost INCONCEIVABLE that when they collapsed and millions of tons of steel and debris were rained down into the surrounding area that a very nearby building collapsed due to structural damage and fire. I mean I bet those collapses barely caused a light breeze.
JESUS WEPT.

please go back to the footage -the steel from the TT pulverised! also B7 was still standing in the afternoon - structurally sound - just a couple of fires. Watch the way it falls - this is not a bespoke structural problem (from e.g a steel debris collision), it is text book CD.



Jesus cried? I did not know you were a christian? here are a couple for you "But ye are forgers of lies, ye are all physicians of no value." Job 13:4 "The proud have forged a lie against me: but I will keep thy precepts with my whole heart." Psalms.

note: i am not a christian.

 

[beorhthelm]

the second collision footage was aired 24 hours after the event - plenty of time for creation.

you lose me here, as i watched the second collision myself, unless you suggest the event happened on the 10th.

B7 must have been either an insurance scam or was the command centre for the days events; the evidence of this needed to be destroyed. To set off all the explosives (if it were not super-tech) then the command centre would have had to have been close.

and the command center for WTC 7 was at... not really a sensible reason is it? for insurance its pretty eloborate, though a possibility. as for "text book CD" it isnt. the penthouse collapses in some time (relatively) before the rest of the structure, and there are plenty of accounts from engineers and demolition experts on tinterwebs that say it isnt. it comes down to experts saying differing things. the balance is shifted one way by the fire dept saying the buliding was looking unsafe (hence why they wanted to pull out).

 

[Bold Seagull]

the second collision footage was aired 24 hours after the event - plenty of time for creation.

B7 must have been either an insurance scam or was the command centre for the days events; the evidence of this needed to be destroyed. To set off all the explosives (if it were not super-tech) then the command centre would have had to have been close.



please go back to the footage -the steel from the TT pulverised! also B7 was still standing in the afternoon - structurally sound - just a couple of fires. Watch the way it falls - this is not a bespoke structural problem (from e.g a steel debris collision), it is text book CD.

Not that you ever respond when presented with actual science and critical analysis. Oh, they must be MSM....

edit: perhaps you could provide as detailed a report giving a full analysis of exactly where the charges would have need to have positioned, their size, the evidence, oh the evidence of their existence, even if just a shread other than some edited video clips, and someone hearing a loud bang...

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

 

[DJ Leon]

the second collision footage was aired 24 hours after the event - plenty of time for creation.

B7 must have been either an insurance scam or was the command centre for the days events; the evidence of this needed to be destroyed. To set off all the explosives (if it were not super-tech) then the command centre would have had to have been close.



please go back to the footage -the steel from the TT pulverised! also B7 was still standing in the afternoon - structurally sound - just a couple of fires. Watch the way it falls - this is not a bespoke structural problem (from e.g a steel debris collision), it is text book CD.



Jesus cried? I did not know you were a christian? here are a couple for you "But ye are forgers of lies, ye are all physicians of no value." Job 13:4 "The proud have forged a lie against me: but I will keep thy precepts with my whole heart." Psalms.

note: i am not a christian.

I'm not really prepared to enter into a debate about this. You can believe what you like. It's your right and, yes, I would defend that right to my death. But what you don't have a right to say is that there is actually any factual or scientific evidence whatsoever to support your claims. There's isn't, there's none.

 

[colinz]

Worst performance by an actress masquerading as an eyewitness to 9/11.
& the Oscar goes to Kathleen.

 

[brunswick]

Not that you ever respond when presented with actual science and critical analysis. Oh, they must be MSM....

edit: perhaps you could provide as detailed a report giving a full analysis of exactly where the charges would have need to have positioned, their size, the evidence, oh the evidence of their existence, even if just a shread other than some edited video clips, and someone hearing a loud bang...

the experts documentary i put up is pretty good scientific proof (over a thousand of them back this movie).
just because one does not know "how" the explosives where placed does not mean it did not explode.

you lose me here, as i watched the second collision myself, unless you suggest the event happened on the 10th.

and the command center for WTC 7 was at... not really a sensible reason is it? for insurance its pretty eloborate, though a possibility. as for "text book CD" it isnt. the penthouse collapses in some time (relatively) before the rest of the structure, and there are plenty of accounts from engineers and demolition experts on tinterwebs that say it isnt. it comes down to experts saying differing things. the balance is shifted one way by the fire dept saying the buliding was looking unsafe (hence why they wanted to pull out).

i was referring to the Naudet Brother footage, which as you rightly point out was not the 2nd, it was the 1st - i respect you,, you pay attention and look into things yourself. But if you think B7 collapsed the way it did due to dust or 2 small fires then we have very different ideas on the laws of physics. Also TV is digital these days, and refer to one of my last posts in this thread on how easy we are fooled by these screens.

what is your response to colinz post above? for me, many of the witnesses who "saw planes" were very "patsyish" in their nature.

I'm not really prepared to enter into a debate about this. You can believe what you like. It's your right and, yes, I would defend that right to my death. But what you don't have a right to say is that there is actually any factual or scientific evidence whatsoever to support your claims. There's isn't, there's none.

and where is your evidence that muslim hijackers (some which were still alive after) flew planes into the twin towers, pentagon, and a hole in the ground? because the evidence provided by the MSM and Elite clearly is a fairy tale (for me).

i am happy to agree to disagree, but even beorhthelm sees holes in the official story, and you "not willing to debate it" means you do not have the weight to back your claims.

As i said before in this thread, the evidence has to be given for the official story and the official story backers', that is the +, the addition being given to the world - in this thread i have given and posted more than enough to give you 3 or so hours of evidence to support that the official story has large holes.

it is each persons right to choose based upon information digested.