There's a reason why the 9/11 conspiracy theories aren't going away

Why does credibility have to be established? What does it matter what else someone believes, or the other correlations they draw... facts pointed out are no less fact than if they were pointed out by a deaf mute who randomly arranged syllables to say "the sky is blue".

Just as the sky is blue, the facts of 9/11 and 7/7 ... let alone their absolute *military related* correlation...

Its not who or why, its simply fact or fiction.

I'll start off by saying it is entirely fiction that the pentagon was hit by a plane, some 500 year kabal theorist didn't come up with that lie... the fact is that kabal theorist, correct in his theories or not, speaks in truth...

if you don't believe either of them, do your own research, just please *please* do not rest on "neither are right, so I don't care"... thats the desired end result to the debate...

But the truth is so very obvious.

 

Consider someone on the fence googling this thread, and reading your posts.

Considering something well beyond the here and now is how the powers that be have become the powers that be... and NOT considering something well beyond the here and now is why we are where we are... but it does not mean we can't set the spark that ignites the downfall of those powers that be - even if it may be 500 years from now and no credit is given to the true "spark"... the deed done is worth the effort.

I don't care if my efforts go unrewarded... what purpose to rewards serve anyway? I do care that my efforts set things in motion that may bring about a desirable outcome, however that may be... I choose subtlety and persistance, whats your angle?

Reread your post, you dwelled on the negative once again....

The glass is halfway, not full or empty....

btw, in this post a purpose for living is apparant... "the" purpose, who knows... but "a" purpose... yup

 

WTC 7.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8171587265178134516

 

oh boy...

I'll watch it

And your view on the pentagon?

Your view on the plane that crashed in pennsylvania (IIRC), yet left no debris?

And before I get into the vid... how exactly did the tower 7 fires get to that point... and how exactly does the building fall on itself in the utmost similarity to a professional demolition?

"and demolition experts who had come down after the towers collapsed were absolutely certain the buildings were going to collapse"... After the fact opinion taken as fact...

Not goin good so far.

 

The fires caused the steel to become very malleable at the temperatures, the steel trusses could no longer bear the weight of the building, and it collapsed as any building would, unto the path of least resistance.

There was massive debris at the pentagon, just not as many in some pictures which are trumpeted to your community. But one issue at a time.

Let's stick with wtc7. You know WTC 11 also had to be torn down because of the fires that day, it simply didn't collapse. Why isn't that a concern of yours? Because it seems more probable to your layman understanding of demolitions?

 

I use wtc 7 as an example because it is not commonly known.

The other 2... well... now those are quite impossible to explain by "fire"... how does the building fall on itself? wouldnt the top fall over? Would not the structure below at some point prevent the top from freefalling? How exactly does something collapse as a freefall if its smashing something below it?

Even if you drop an anvil on a popsicle stick structure, its going to slow it down some... and we are talking more like an anvil on a safe...

This video has yet to reference a video.... it has yet to point out the visual facts that support it... it has yet to "prove" anything, there are no irrefutable facts present, not even common sense presented, only an opinion of those assigned credibility.

Or should I say, direct references are not presented... wikipedia would not be satisfied.

pause to watch this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926

 

That video I posted offers reasonable explanations to your questions in half an hour.

It simply didn't freefall, not do building freefall in controlled demolitions.

WTC7 is well known. The damage to building 11 isn't as known to those with a youtube education on the matter.

 

Arguable? Perhaps

How about the wargames/radar etc correlation? How about the london 7/7 events and the exact same correlation? Perhaps you can explain one, perhaps you can explain both individually... but how exactly does the near exact correlation between the 2 explain away?

Maybe the terrorists have guys very deep inside the CIA... not like the CIA wasn't involved in training those who became terrorists... perhaps you have a better explanation?

And if we are going to make such stretches to prove our points... lets say the towers were demolished by extremely advanced means not at all similar to the common/much cheaper means commonly used.

 

Video comparing controlled demolitions to the collapses of 9/11

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926

 

edited my post, already watching.

 

You're kinda pitching them really fast here. Yes, my explanation is that there were 20 hijakers.

Are you going to look at those videos I posted?

 

Fair enough.

 

a link to check out...

also plausible.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html

 

just rolling through the common arguments in which I'm sure you have common responses... if nothing else putting on a show of information for those who may be reading (anyone?) to be well informed and draw their own conclusions.

The "it wasn't demolished" video fails to acknowledge any sort of alternative demolition method... or at least it hasnt thus far and I dont have time to finish.

Plausible explanations are not always straightforward... and assuming there was some orchestration to the collapse those orchestrating would assumably not make it so obvious as to literally "blow up" the building... so to find an alternative explanation to the unsatisfactory "fire" explanation, we must think out of the box.

The thermite explanation explains some things the fire thing cannot.

Btw, not finishing because I feel an OCD style research bonanza coming on and I gotta be up for work at 3 AM...

Distracted, just like big brother demands...

lol

 

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims

Thermite comparions with WTC rubble.

 

good reply

but now lets examine a quote from that article:
NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially).

now lets examine the temp of burning jet fuel:
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

now lets say the fuel exploded and burnt... how does the fire keep burning at a hot enough point to significantly weaken the steel, and how does the steel below, unweakened (no fire) collapse so easily?

Now to return to tower 7, what in there could have possibly burned hotter than jet fuel, and burned substantially hotter to weaken the structure over a period of time and tear down the whole building, which once again, happens to collapse on itself in a very demolition like action, lets assume the similarities coincidence... but what *exactly* caused it? The vid on wtc 7 didn't explain what could have burned that hot, it simply said there was a raging fire... which i don't see in the vids, but lets assume them correct... any ideas?

In your link I see thermite debunked, I have no opposition to that...

But it does *not* explain those temps, at all.

What can explain the extrodinarly high temps required for things to happen as explained? How do pools of molten steel even happen, and how do they remain molten for so long? That shows no correlation to a demolition as we know it... but it also shows no correlation to a building simply collapsing either.

It *can* correlate to an alternative form of demolition... we must delve into the unknown here, but as in the theory of the universe... "its just gotta make sense..."

And...

what about the basement explosions (or whatever you wish to call them), and the injuries to those people down there, yet they could still escape... if the impact x stories up was enough to kill/injure people in the basement (assuming the stories of those in the basement who say there was an explosion before the plane hit are false)... how in the world did A: the building not topple over in the direction of the plane hitting it - or at least swing back and forth, and B: EVERYONE in the building not experience such a traumatic force? Some foiks definitely did make it out without feeling anything incredibly substantial, how did those in the basement get it so bad... yet some of those who experienced that "so bad" were still able to run out of the building (IE, it had yet to collapse).

 

Wrong.

It fell in the path of MOST resistance.

If it followed the path of least resistance the buildings would have fallen over on their side.

 

20 hijackers?

Now is that your own conspiracy theory, because the official story says 19.

 

And you're argument is nuh-uh.