By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Was 911 an inside job?

 

Was it?

No 109 98.20%
 
Total:109
Gribble on 18 January 2013
Max King of the Wild said:
Gribble said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Gribble said:

This argument moves around far too much. I've tried to establish the collapse of tower 7 and the crimping effect which is reminiscent of a controlled demolition, but that isn't suspicious at all, even though it was the third building that fell into its own footprint on that day and it didn't sustain any real structural damage.

I've posted undeniable proof that dozens and dozens of witness said that they heard bombs going off ... not just one bomb, but 'like a machine gun', or 'fire crackers', or 'boom, boom, boom.' Once we establish that witness did indeed say they heard bombs you should (if you had anything about you) question the official story, but you just choose to ignore those witnesses. I'm sure you can't disagree that the witnesses, and many of them, DID actually say that? OK, so now we've established that. So when asked about the witnesses that say they heard bombs, why did Bernie Kerik say that there were no witnesses? Can you imagine how frustrating that must have been for those many people who said there was? They were firemen and policemen and people who were actually in the building.

OK, so what about Dick Chaney and the Norman Mineta testimony? You see this goes on and on and on and never stops. This is why it will never go away, as much as the conspiracy theorists would like it to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

As a lawyer, I really hope you listen to the witnesses!



No one said they heard bombs going off. It was the 4th building to collapse but convienently leave out WT5 because it doesn't support your argument. And the "bombs" werent referring to 7 so they are irrelevant considering they were supposidly in the basement of the twin towers which makes your claim look ridiculous because the buildings fell from the top down

Oh, dear lord. You just can't accept what people are posting and proving can you. It doesn't matter which tower these people are talking about. They heard bombs. Not one, not two, but many. These people include firefighters, policemen, civilians in the towers, bystanders and news reporters. This is very important because it offers another reason why the twin towers came down in such an extraordinary way, but for some strange reason you just want to ignore that. When you are in court and three witnesses claim they heard gunshots, are you just going to be able to ignore their testimony in order to push the idea that your client was innocent and that the victim mearly fell over from a heart attack?


I've watched over three minutes of that video. Haven't heard the word bomb yet. You are the only one using that word. Explosions =/= bomb. No one has proved a single thing except they believe this convoluted theory that involves bombs, thermite, thermate, demo crews, government, war plans, missles, actors, owners of buildings, ect ect...

The twin towers came down in an extrodarnary way? Which way is that? GETTING A FUCKING GIANT AS PLAN SLAMMING TO THE SIDE OF THEM AND BURNING FOR AN HOUR AT HIGH TEMPERATURES THEN COLLAPSING FROM THE TOP DOWN (but I thought the bombs were in the basement.... hm....)

Noone can be this ignorant, can they? WATCH IT ALL! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfJtsAVoxOA At two minutes you actually hear the explosion yourself! Jesus Wept lol

And this time try to include this video in your reply so that people can actually see which video you are choosing to ignore.



Around the Network
Max King of the Wild on 18 January 2013
Gribble said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Gribble said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Gribble said:

This argument moves around far too much. I've tried to establish the collapse of tower 7 and the crimping effect which is reminiscent of a controlled demolition, but that isn't suspicious at all, even though it was the third building that fell into its own footprint on that day and it didn't sustain any real structural damage.

I've posted undeniable proof that dozens and dozens of witness said that they heard bombs going off ... not just one bomb, but 'like a machine gun', or 'fire crackers', or 'boom, boom, boom.' Once we establish that witness did indeed say they heard bombs you should (if you had anything about you) question the official story, but you just choose to ignore those witnesses. I'm sure you can't disagree that the witnesses, and many of them, DID actually say that? OK, so now we've established that. So when asked about the witnesses that say they heard bombs, why did Bernie Kerik say that there were no witnesses? Can you imagine how frustrating that must have been for those many people who said there was? They were firemen and policemen and people who were actually in the building.

OK, so what about Dick Chaney and the Norman Mineta testimony? You see this goes on and on and on and never stops. This is why it will never go away, as much as the conspiracy theorists would like it to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

As a lawyer, I really hope you listen to the witnesses!



No one said they heard bombs going off. It was the 4th building to collapse but convienently leave out WT5 because it doesn't support your argument. And the "bombs" werent referring to 7 so they are irrelevant considering they were supposidly in the basement of the twin towers which makes your claim look ridiculous because the buildings fell from the top down

Oh, dear lord. You just can't accept what people are posting and proving can you. It doesn't matter which tower these people are talking about. They heard bombs. Not one, not two, but many. These people include firefighters, policemen, civilians in the towers, bystanders and news reporters. This is very important because it offers another reason why the twin towers came down in such an extraordinary way, but for some strange reason you just want to ignore that. When you are in court and three witnesses claim they heard gunshots, are you just going to be able to ignore their testimony in order to push the idea that your client was innocent and that the victim mearly fell over from a heart attack?


I've watched over three minutes of that video. Haven't heard the word bomb yet. You are the only one using that word. Explosions =/= bomb. No one has proved a single thing except they believe this convoluted theory that involves bombs, thermite, thermate, demo crews, government, war plans, missles, actors, owners of buildings, ect ect...

The twin towers came down in an extrodarnary way? Which way is that? GETTING A FUCKING GIANT AS PLAN SLAMMING TO THE SIDE OF THEM AND BURNING FOR AN HOUR AT HIGH TEMPERATURES THEN COLLAPSING FROM THE TOP DOWN (but I thought the bombs were in the basement.... hm....)

Noone can be this ignorant, can they? WATCH IT ALL!


Only ignorance is from you. A lot of those people say explosions... explosions do not equal boms... Some (2 i think) said they think the lobby were bombed first... yet if that were true they wouldn't have been witnesses. They saw it after the fact. On top of that, some people say a van exp[loded... WHAT?!?!?!?! I thought these bombs were set on every support....

On top of this ignorance you still haven't provided evidence to support explosives taking down the building... ya know... because the building came top down... but your explosive theory would mean it came from the basement and bottom down... logic escapes you.

I'm off to class maybe other people will take you guys up and laugh at your absurd claims



Gribble on 18 January 2013
Max King of the Wild said:
Gribble said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Gribble said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Gribble said:

This argument moves around far too much. I've tried to establish the collapse of tower 7 and the crimping effect which is reminiscent of a controlled demolition, but that isn't suspicious at all, even though it was the third building that fell into its own footprint on that day and it didn't sustain any real structural damage.

I've posted undeniable proof that dozens and dozens of witness said that they heard bombs going off ... not just one bomb, but 'like a machine gun', or 'fire crackers', or 'boom, boom, boom.' Once we establish that witness did indeed say they heard bombs you should (if you had anything about you) question the official story, but you just choose to ignore those witnesses. I'm sure you can't disagree that the witnesses, and many of them, DID actually say that? OK, so now we've established that. So when asked about the witnesses that say they heard bombs, why did Bernie Kerik say that there were no witnesses? Can you imagine how frustrating that must have been for those many people who said there was? They were firemen and policemen and people who were actually in the building.

OK, so what about Dick Chaney and the Norman Mineta testimony? You see this goes on and on and on and never stops. This is why it will never go away, as much as the conspiracy theorists would like it to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

As a lawyer, I really hope you listen to the witnesses!



No one said they heard bombs going off. It was the 4th building to collapse but convienently leave out WT5 because it doesn't support your argument. And the "bombs" werent referring to 7 so they are irrelevant considering they were supposidly in the basement of the twin towers which makes your claim look ridiculous because the buildings fell from the top down

Oh, dear lord. You just can't accept what people are posting and proving can you. It doesn't matter which tower these people are talking about. They heard bombs. Not one, not two, but many. These people include firefighters, policemen, civilians in the towers, bystanders and news reporters. This is very important because it offers another reason why the twin towers came down in such an extraordinary way, but for some strange reason you just want to ignore that. When you are in court and three witnesses claim they heard gunshots, are you just going to be able to ignore their testimony in order to push the idea that your client was innocent and that the victim mearly fell over from a heart attack?


I've watched over three minutes of that video. Haven't heard the word bomb yet. You are the only one using that word. Explosions =/= bomb. No one has proved a single thing except they believe this convoluted theory that involves bombs, thermite, thermate, demo crews, government, war plans, missles, actors, owners of buildings, ect ect...

The twin towers came down in an extrodarnary way? Which way is that? GETTING A FUCKING GIANT AS PLAN SLAMMING TO THE SIDE OF THEM AND BURNING FOR AN HOUR AT HIGH TEMPERATURES THEN COLLAPSING FROM THE TOP DOWN (but I thought the bombs were in the basement.... hm....)

Noone can be this ignorant, can they? WATCH IT ALL!


Only ignorance is from you. A lot of those people say explosions... explosions do not equal boms... Some (2 i think) said they think the lobby were bombed first... yet if that were true they wouldn't have been witnesses. They saw it after the fact. On top of that, some people say a van exp[loded... WHAT?!?!?!?! I thought these bombs were set on every support....

On top of this ignorance you still haven't provided evidence to support explosives taking down the building... ya know... because the building came top down... but your explosive theory would mean it came from the basement and bottom down... logic escapes you.

I'm off to class maybe other people will take you guys up and laugh at your absurd claims

The fact that you keep replying to my posts and remove the video in question (third time now) tells me and anyone reading everything they need to know.

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

The detonations 'like firecrackers',  'boom, boom, boom.' would be bombs to weaken the structure so that it could fall into its own footprint at near free-fall. This is how it works and this is often referred to as 'pulling it'. I'm done with you because quite clearly you are incapable of actually taking information in. I just can't take conspiricy theorists seriously when they keep ignoring physics and think a guy from a cave and men with box cutters could infiltrate the most highly protected airspace in the world. It's bonkers. I know which side of the FEMA camp fence you'll be.



Max King of the Wild on 18 January 2013

I remove your links because they dont need to be on the same page 10 in a row and its common courtesy so that people reading the. thread dont get spammed. There is no hidden agenda but it shows alot about your mind frame.. paranoia. Much? As you can see from the video the debris falls faster than the building .... which proved the building is still offering resistance. Far cry from free fall. On top of that if it where falling free fall the dust would expell from the bottom not from the top which shows your wrong. And your right about conspiracy theorist.



Max King of the Wild on 18 January 2013

Oh yeah and pulling it is as you provided when they attach cables to a building and pull it down . But why would the owner be involved in this and tell a firemen to demo his building lolkolololololololol. But in layman's terms its pull the plug/operation.



Around the Network
Gribble on 18 January 2013

That's were the term originated. Are you actually following this conversation or just cherry picking what suits? Buildings do not collapse like that, from normal explosion, plane crashes or fires. It is physically impossible for a ton of material to continue on through many tons of material without slowing or at some point moving towards the point of least resistance. In this case, The point of least resistance would have been the side were the plane hits. At one point you actually see this taking place but then suddenly physics decides 'nope' I refuse to follow the law and then continues directly downwards. THREE TIMES in ONE DAY. Please, you must understand, what you saw is impossible unless designed. Why do you think that hundreds of experts are now calling for a hearing? Because they're all nutters? Or perhaps they're just the sort of brave men that the world needs

 

just watch a few of these and then we can talk: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/watch-online/



Figlioni on 18 January 2013
Gribble said:

That's were the term originated. Are you actually following this conversation or just cherry picking what suits? Buildings do not collapse like that, from normal explosion, plane crashes or fires. It is physically impossible for a ton of material to continue on through many tons of material without slowing or at some point moving towards the point of least resistance. In this case, The point of least resistance would have been the side were the plane hits. At one point you actually see this taking place but then suddenly physics decides 'nope' I refuse to follow the law and then continues directly downwards. THREE TIMES in ONE DAY. Please, you must understand, what you saw is impossible unless designed. Why do you think that hundreds of experts are now calling for a hearing? Because they're all nutters? Or perhaps they're just the sort of brave men that the world needs

 

just watch a few of these and then we can talk: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/watch-online/


You're hlarious. You'be been beaten to a pulp and you don't even realize it.

You are exactly they type of person the tr00thars need.



"Success really is decided at birth, and your life will never be better than it is right now. Sorry about that."

Gribble on 18 January 2013
Figlioni said:
Gribble said:

That's were the term originated. Are you actually following this conversation or just cherry picking what suits? Buildings do not collapse like that, from normal explosion, plane crashes or fires. It is physically impossible for a ton of material to continue on through many tons of material without slowing or at some point moving towards the point of least resistance. In this case, The point of least resistance would have been the side were the plane hits. At one point you actually see this taking place but then suddenly physics decides 'nope' I refuse to follow the law and then continues directly downwards. THREE TIMES in ONE DAY. Please, you must understand, what you saw is impossible unless designed. Why do you think that hundreds of experts are now calling for a hearing? Because they're all nutters? Or perhaps they're just the sort of brave men that the world needs

 

just watch a few of these and then we can talk: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/watch-online/


You're hlarious. You'be been beaten to a pulp and you don't even realize it.

You are exactly they type of person the tr00thars need.

"Success really is decided at birth, and your life will never be better than it is right now. Sorry about that."

Let's hear your side of the story. How was it achieved? I'm sure you'll provide just as much evidence as the rest of us. Videos, documentations and interviews with people who were in the building please. I do know that you won't find any ferensic evidence from the twin towers and building 7 because it was all immediately shipped to China. A break in protocol but I'm sure they had their reasons: GO!



dsgrue3 on 18 January 2013

All I want to know is how they recovered all but 1 person's DNA from Flight 77 if the plane was largely obliterated and burned.

This guy even said there were body parts yet we have no photographs. Curious.

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" 

Source

 



Gribble on 18 January 2013
dsgrue3 said:

 

All I want to know is how they recovered all but 1 person's DNA from Flight 77 if the plane was largely obliterated and burned.

This guy even said there were body parts yet we have no photographs. Curious.

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" 

Source

 

 

Clearly all those body parts belonged to the same person. I'm more curious about why all the witnesses on the flight path of that supposes plane conflicts with the official report.

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

just a couple of the witnesses. The telling thing is that clearly both officers had not heard the official story which is why they are so candid in this video. There are many other witnesses. I'm still looking for the full video.