9/11 Attacks

Di0genes wrote: »

Sighs both instances can be explained by human error. Jennings could have been mistaken in his timeline. The firefighters knew the building was coming down they just didn't know when, the BBC misunderstood, and thought the building had already come down.

Ok 1 media outlet getting it wrong fair enough 2 getting it wrong kind of skews the limits of probability and the BBC having a reporter with the building in the background still standing...I dont think so...You still have no answer for it..Human error its highly unlikely that 2 seperate humans infact 2 seperate media outlets predicted it about 5/10 minutes ahead of time.....So do you know this for sure that the BBC misunderstood...show me the link to this otherwise your just speculating...What evidence we do know is they reported it ahead of time? So jennings predicted it..wow he should be on the prophecy hot line so?? You are really trying I will give you that but you still fail in your explaination.

Di0genes wrote: »

I already demonstrated several media outlets reported a car bomb in capital without proof. Thus demonstrating my point. Are you going to keep avoiding that?

Did any of these media outlets have a footage of the car bomb site??? if so post them up?? if not it is completely different to what we are discussing.

The biggest event since the atomb bomb and your trying to say that reporters either got the timeline wrong or they were unaware of which building was building 7??? Sure every media outlet in the world was focussed on The towers that day.....Stop trying to deflect away from the point that 2 media outlets knew about 5/10 mins before building 7 came down and reported as such..They did not report that it may come down..They said it had collapsed...This cannot be mistaken for anything else

Di0genes wrote: »

Sorry first of all, which was the 2nd media outlet that reported the collapse prematurely??

Secondly I must admit, I’m getting weary of your argument from incredibility.

It’s your opinion that the journalist must have known that the building behind her was building 7. Because journalists on a live feed watching events unfold, must have a enclopeadic knowledge of everything they’re witnessing. Do BBC reporters in America have to pass a test wherein they need to be able to identify the buildings in the skyline of every American city?

I think any of us who have watched a live feed, know that this is nothing short of nonsense. Watching everything from the death of Michael Jackson, to the Royal Wedding to the disapperance of Madeline Mc Cann, know that on screen journalists, are often as ill informed as we are, as to events unfolding.

The journalist on 911 got it wrong.

What’s your alternative theory then mate? That the journalist was part of the NWO and was let into the secret, and let the cat out of the bag?

You admit that firefighters knew the building was going to collapse. Why would the baddies blow up a building that was already about to collapse. Your theory doesn’t pass basic levels of scrutiny.

Well people often get wiery when they are trying to invent ways of slagging you off and trying to discredit you instead of coming up with a plausable reason as to what went on.

My Aguement is that BBC and CNN stated that building 7 collapsed about 5/10 mins before it actually did..Now I said firemen may know if a building is likely to come down but argued how they would know when...If people know when a building is coming down it is controlled...there is no other explaination other than being a seer or a prophet

Once again your skewing and deflecting just deal with the issue..So the media got it wrong prove it?

I am not sure what happened that day but your theory about Bin laden and 19 terrorists did it..What about claims made that some of the so called terrorists are still alive

http://911review.org/Wiki/HijackersAliveAndWell.shtml

I mean I could go through your theory and pick holes in it aswell and it doesnt stand up to scrutiny. I never said what I believe happened...I also said that you had some good explainations as to most things except for building 7 ... I mean it is plausable your argument for the whole molten steal vs motel metal..also it is highly unlikely but plausable that a passport of one of the hi jackers was blown clean and fully intact..

But how plausable is it that people knew that building 7 was coming down and knew when it was coming down unless they could control that???

the other is CNN watch the footage its only when the reporter turns and cops that building 7 is actually still up he states that it may come down.

Here is NBC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

Also building 7 demolishion from another angle ...interesting what is pointed out here I will let you come up with an explaination for it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&feature=fvwrel

I mean what about videos like this its hard to think of the fire done this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwV5amOxcv8&feature=related

I have also checked out other videos trying to debunk but it falls short? As in other buildings where closer to building 1 and 2 and took a simular pounding from debree and yet they did not collapse...Also when faced with simular steal building burnings as shown in the other videos it is hard to believe that fire ultimately brought it down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&feature=related

Bottom line .......... what happened on 11th Sept 01 is not how it has been reported by mainstream media and/or the American Administration of the time/or since. ......a more sinister explaination is most plausible given the countless reports and independant theories of "experts" in the fields of science,engineering and LOGIC!!

If you have the time or interest i'd recommend this for veiwing...











....to be continued!

....and lastly....




........ and that's all that needs to be seen/heard.

!Dont answer their questions,question their answers"

The sheeople need to wake up!

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well, having watched the first 'coincidence' video, the claim about no steel framed buildings collapsing aside from the WTC ones has been thoroughly debunked.

Not a good start. I hope the rest of them are more truthful.

I've not seen anything by way of a thourough debunking of the alleged 'fact' outlined in the 1st exert,I'm assuming the uploader condensed the info and was going for the fact that no steel structure of that size was ever floored in the manner with which the 3 towers came down, by fire.

I feel that the towers did not come crashing down they way they did because of fire,I also think had the towers become unstable due to the breach and the resulting fire and where going to topple,then wouldnt it have been more likely that the unstable higher sections (above the impact area) would have toppled away and collapsed first ,bringing more of the structure with it as it fell,but falling away from the upright position rather than in on itself in the 'pancake' effect....and certainly not in the 10 odd seconds that each came down (quicker in the case of WTC7 - Which wouldnt have sustained anything like the damage on the twin towers).

I don't like to get into the arguments of 'conspiracy theorists' I'm just posting what I feel on the events of Sept 11 2001 , i'm very sceptical of the official 'news' and reports of what supposedly happened.

In regard to what you hope is more truthful ,you can only make up your own mind to believe what you believe to be true.

I certainly wont take the words of an American Administration to be truth,they're not exactly the good wholesome god fearing saviours of the world that the portray themselves to be.

Enjoy the rest of the peices

Di0genes wrote: »

The Windsor Building.

Suffered a partial collapse.

However the part of the building that suffered a total collapse? The steel framed part.

Also

www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

And of course none of these buildings had their structure compromised by a jet plane crashing into them.

The statement made relates to pre-2001, The Windsor building fire was 2005 and it was suspected that that too was deliberate (alot to be learned from Silversteins case re: WTC in the previous years),however,the collapse in this case was minor by comparision,in that only a section of the outer structure came away from the building,it was later decided to "pull" the remaining structure.

The link you provided doesnt work,can you resend it? thanks.

p.s.
Just to add, the demolition of the WTC buildings is just scratching the surface of the events of Sept 11th 2001.....the peices above delve much deeper.

Di0genes wrote: »

http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153

http://skeptosis.blogspot.com/2007/02/fire-vs-steel-facts.html

Eh....once again you've proved that no steel structured buildings collapsed due to fire prior to 9/11. From your links:

So again, just to re-state the undebunkable truth, prior to 9/11, no steel-framed building had ever fully collapsed due to fire.

Hope that's clear enough for everyone.