A clip from “The 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction”, a documentary produced by The History Channel and Scientific American.
(Visited 25 times, 1 visits today)
9/11 Building 7 Explained
A clip from “The 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction”, a documentary produced by The History Channel and Scientific American.
The final NIST report does not account for the conditions where the collapse became initiated.
That’s a lie. WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6 did not collapse. They were demolished during clean up.
Here's another explanation. Flight 93 crashed before it reached its target, which was Building 7. They had a building full of incriminating controlled demolition explosives, so what's a Mossad operative to do? Pull it, dude. Pull it.
uh..ok…yeah!!
you would not have seen any det cord or a blasting cap after explosion rofl. wow
"Search, in youtube, for Building 7 Explosion Flashes. I'd like to see you explain how a fire can do that."
Fire can't do that, moron. It was a fake video. A hoax. How many times have you seen footage of WTC 7 falling without those obvious explosions? Is this the "critical thinking" you use to evaluate the evidence of 9/11?
Here's a video of the guy who made the hoax video — explaining what a fucking tool you need to be to believe this OBVIOUS hoax.
watch?v=k8VAsoVuShM
I think you got the wrong guy??
What your saying I think you are right.
Thank you for your com. is your right to say what you think is true I have no problem with that.!!
In your com you are right about what your saying But I know that things were said that were not pick up too.
"but if they keep saying it people will believe it (like you)."
The only group repeating themselves is you idiots. The official story was put together based on actual, real evidence. It doesn't change, unlike truther theories. And idiots like you come back with "they CANNOT disprove the idea it was demolished …"
Who's job is it to disprove idiotic conspiracy theories? It's up to you clowns to prove YOUR fantasies – and so far, you haven't come close, nor provided ANY real evidence.
I'm not showing you the TRUTH, I'm showing you what cannot be consistently true about what the public thinks. Believe what you want about what I have to say.
I've looked at those phone calls, and they talk about hijackers but they don't get any more specific than that. The official story of the alleged hijackers is still a story. I've seen their explanations on WTC 7, they CANNOT disprove the idea it was demolished, or answer to the FACT that people knew it was going to "blow up" before it did. No one has seen the office fires collapse every steel beam simultaneously, but if they keep saying it people will believe it (like you).
I can tell you alot of things was not talk about I Don’t know even know were to being? ?
Thank you for the TRUTH Big time walk in peace bro!!!
"Alleged facts"? Like the phone calls from passengers and flight attendants who described how the hijackers took control of the planes? That's evidence. No evidence that the fires caused WTC 7 to collapse? Are you one of those truthers who claim that "all" the wreckage and evidence from the collapses were shipped off and melted before they could be examined? You're grasping. There are many different kinds of evidence. If you want a more thorough film of WTC 7
watch?v=oTZ3XXO7wNA
Well, they made up stories to explain everything. Assuming you're not counting alleged facts as evidence, there is no evidence that hijackers with box cutters took the plane. There's no evidence office fires caused the buildings to collapse. You gotta understand these are all theoretical explanations to what we saw, no one actually observed first hand what happened to the interior of the buildings, or in the cockpit of the planes. Evidence is observed, not theorized.
It was a mistake. Reuters New Service carried an erroneous local report – and the BBC picked it up. There were many things misreported that day. And every hectic news day makes scores of mistake. It was obviously picked up – because fire fighters were telling journalists on the scene that is was going to fail. They were right.
Are you trying to translate my English into some kind of conspiratardeze? I'm asking you to name some aspect of, something about the official story that is NOT supported by evidence. Can you?
uuhh……. You're asking if there is something in the commission report that was thought about before being added in?
No mention of BBC reporting on the collapse 30 min before it fell?
Was I speaking in a language that's foreign to you? What didn't you understand? Which word can't you read?
huh?
Let me know it there is anything in the official story that isn't supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Let's hear it.
Don't tolerate "outrageous conspiracy theories" – sounds like good advice. Is it your practice to embrace "outrageous" ideas? Look up the meaning of the word. If the evidence supported an outrageous claim – I'd believe it. It doesn't.
Search youtube com/ watch?v=1-Hj-Y6o6ec
"(vs. us, the lunatic conspiracy theorists that Bush told you not to tolerate)."
Do you have some kind of quote to back that up? It's probably good advice — since most "truthers" have no interest in the truth or the facts. But I don't remember him saying that. Give me the quote.
Burned up cars — is big picture stuff? Nearly every building in the WTC complex was burning — the two towers were burning and collapsed — and you wonder how cars parked below caught fire and burned? I don't follow your logic.
"… there is little information about the pentagon anyway,"
Where do you come up with that load of shit? Try looking for it. There is plenty of info on Flight 77 and Flight 93. The only place you can't find much evidence — is on "Truther" sites. Why?
I don't have many answers about what happened, and I'm not trying to claim I do. I can't answer some things about the pentagon, and so I tried to talk about the bigger picture because there is little information about the pentagon anyway, and looking at everything that happened gives you a better picture of the truth. We are both talking about evidence, and so the truth has to answer to both, not just yours (vs. us, the lunatic conspiracy theorists that Bush told you not to tolerate).
Yes, I've seen those burned cars. I've heard about them for years from many of you idiots. Many of your bretheren blame it on DEW's … Directed Energy Weapons. I'm not claiming you're one of them … but maybe you are. I don't know.
But what does that have to do with what we were discussing? How does that relate to the irrefutable evidence of Flight 77 at the Pentagon. Are you going to keep changing the topic — because truther sites don't discuss the real evidence? I guess so.
Look up, on youtube, the various cars throughout more than a one mile radius from WTC that got tossed around, melted and twisted up. I bet you never looked at that evidence have you Inspector Gadget? If not, you can join the 9/11 Commission Report and all of the other hacks who keep fooling themselves.
That's your reply to YOU not knowing the facts? YOU could have found that info with just a minute of searching. YOU chose to get your info from paranoid retards … and you want ME to "realize what's going on"? How about you knowing what the hell you're talking about? Try that, first. You've spent a fair amount of time, I'm guessing, looking into 9/11. Given that fact, why are you ignorant of the facts? Because the people that you CHOOSE to believe don't want you to know the evidence.
I hope one day you will realize what's going on.
They are very consistent. You can see interviews with many of them on YT. Most said they saw the unmistakable markings of American Airlines. How did the smoldering body parts get there — when they had just boarded flight 77 ninety minutes before the crash. Like most conspiracy clowns you pick the odd claims of a few witnesses. Well over a hundred people's testimony lines up with the facts.
And drama? I know the facts. Why don't you?
Didn't say there wasn't evidence. There are many eye witnesses on the event, and not all of them are consistent. In fact most of them show the flight path of the plane being contrary to what the official report is. There is also one testimony of the plane flying over the pentagon, and another saying that what hit the pentagon was a small "commuter" plane. Your link is interesting though, I'll look more into it, and dude, stop with the drama and take this argument as a time to look at your ideas.
The other post I sent you linked a 10 minute video that shows you the evidence. I'll link it again.
watch?v=is_qBXqObes
Are you pretending the evidence doesn't exist — because truther sites say so? The evidence was found, documented, recorded and is part of history. "Drone"? You've got to be kidding me. So, you're claiming that all the hundreds of witnesses were "planted"? The fire fighters, paramedics, medical examiners, local police, FBI, pedestrians, etc. were all in on it? LOL
I did see this before. I want you to show me what evidence you're talking about with the pentagon that hit the plane. I need you to prove to me that it wasn't a drone-plane. What's the matter?
You probably haven’t even watched the documentary that this video is a part of. How could you know the evidence – if you’re too chicken to look at the other side? You want to load up with your anomalies and pretend the evidence doesn’t exist. That can only happen to people who cover their eyes. “Truthers” … what an oxymoron. You guys can’t handle the truth.
No samples indicate "high explosives" were used. There was nothing found. Nothing that would be used for a CD. Nothing. Zero. There is NO WAY you could rig a building for Demo without everyone in the south end of Manhatten not knowing about it. Your theories are a joke.
The fact that you don't know what evidence was found at the Pentagon – shows what a complete joke you are. You get all your info from conspiratards. Here ya go …
watch?v=is_qBXqObes
Please show me your information and source for the pentagon plane.
The molten metal in the ruin, and the samples of the sulfur debris, indicate high explosives were used. Careful about your "zero" evidence.
You don't see a logistics problem with keeping all the evidence there? It was not "ALL" taken away an melted. How much of the debris did you want us to hold onto? They found ZERO evidence in the debris pile of a demo.
At the Pentagon – they found parts of the fuselage, seats, landing gear, cock pit, engines, and the ID'd remains of 59 of the 64 passengers. YOU don't know the facts. YOU don't know the evidence. Venture out of your padded truther rooms and you might find out.
Evidence and facts aren't reason itself, but I know what you mean. Most people who buy the official story don't know all of the facts either, because the fact is, for an investigated crime scene, not much evidence at all has been taken from 9/11. Giuliani had everything from the wreckage melted down and shipped over seas. No evidence of the hijackers turned up till later, and some of them were even alive. No film except 1 shows something hitting the pentagon, etc. The who event was covered up.
" Real authority is in reason, not in honor."
The only "reason" that should apply are the evidence and facts. Most "truthers" don't know the facts — because 'truther' sites tell them that the real evidence doesn't exist. One check with non-truther sites tells a different story and backs it up. Once you notice that — why would you believe truther sites?
Dude, a lot of Americans say they reject the official commission report – because they say "we're not being told everything" … whatever that means. And others say the govt knew it would happen but didn't stop it. Only about 15 to 20% of people believe it's an inside job — which is still a huge number for such a stupid position. Most don't know the facts.
The ONLY professional orgs that reject the official story are "truther" orgs. Scores of legit prof. orgs support the official story.
Dude, most Americans don't believe that the official story is entirely true. You know how many people that accounts for? Most of them aren't "9/11 truthers" either. Besides, "major professional" organizations have quite a history of crafting advanced arguments to support a fraud, just look at history. Real authority is in reason, not in honor.