Watch this amazing video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4194796183168750014

Quote :

"September 11th Revisited: Were Explosives Used? September 11th Revisited is perhaps the most riveting film ever made about the destruction of the World Trade Center. This is a powerful documentary which features eyewitness accounts and archived news footage that was shot on September 11, 2001 but never replayed on television. Featuring interviews with eyewitnesses & firefighters, along with expert analysis by Professor Steven E. Jones, Professor David Ray Griffin, MIT Engineer Jeffrey King, and Professor James H. Fetzer. This film provides stunning evidence that explosives were used in the complete demolition of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC Building 7."

8/21/2006 12:17:19 PM

yes explosives were used

they're called airplane fuel tanks

btw you know that story is legit when it has interviews with Charlie Sheen on Showbiz Tonight

8/21/2006 12:18:06 PM

cock

balls

8/21/2006 12:18:12 PM

oh i thought he was gone forever.

8/21/2006 12:24:03 PM

8/21/2006 12:29:15 PM

sigh

8/21/2006 12:29:28 PM

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 12:37 PM. Reason : `]

8/21/2006 12:36:05 PM

that tiny picture confirms it...gravity works the same for different buildings

8/21/2006 12:39:07 PM

Motive?
Evidence beyond speculation?
Suspects?

?

8/21/2006 12:41:21 PM

What we need is an old fashioned Amish tower raising:

8/21/2006 12:45:01 PM

holy crap explosives were obviously used to bring that building up.



[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 12:49 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2006 12:49:02 PM

what the fuck is this shit

this is his third damn topic on this

what the fuck

8/21/2006 12:50:24 PM

ibtl

8/21/2006 1:02:04 PM

didnt happen, seen the video, typical unfounded conspiracy theory.

8/21/2006 1:10:37 PM

8/21/2006 1:37:56 PM

Quote :

"What we need is an old fashioned Amish tower raising:"

I don't know why, but this line just spoke to me. Thank you so much !!!

8/21/2006 2:07:48 PM

I could have sworn that there was already a thread where salisburyboy could ignore questions about his 9/11 theory.

8/21/2006 2:49:17 PM

Here are some videos of actual building implosions:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3734778582740389904&q=implosion

Hear the deafening explosions long before the building even moves?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153&q=implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6209867556562706196&q=implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5446838557512388694&q=implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5360235832416833797&q=implosion

This is the same building. Notice the clearly visible explosions all over the building? Notice how the building collapse begins at the bottom instead of the top falling first?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5515424451823800690&q=implosion

Same features, different building. Loud explosions. Collapse begins at the bottom, not the top. I know that you love to point out the cloud of dust shot from the window during the collapse of the WTC, but the simple fact is that there is absolutely no need to set off additional explosions as the building is collapsing - momentum will do the job.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8719593880031165898&q=implosion

Heres the same thing in Raleigh, no less. There is no need to set off more charges during collapse. What you saw during the WTC collapse was air being forced out as the floors pancaked.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7000444892387259083&q=implosion

Heres a building in Las Vegas. Notice the many clearly visible sequenced explosions? Where were those when the WTC came down? One plume of dust coming out of a window is not evidence of a controlled demolition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6449270076349123045&q=implosion

Heres another one. Notice the explosions all took place before the collapse, not during.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4451252877216031192&q=implosion

Heres a dorm in Minnesota. Loud and clearly visible sequenced explosions prior to collapse. There are even plumes of dust ejected from the windows during collapse, just like the WTC. Notice that you don't hear any explosion accompanying the dust plume.

There are a lot more videos out there if you want to see more. All of those buildings were significantly smaller than the World Trade Center, yet still produced deafening explosions. How many tons of explosives would have been needed to bring down two 110 story skyscrapers? Why doesn't a single video of the event include the sound of sequenced explosions?

Look at the explosions themselves. They all happened before the collapse. In every single video you see and hear charges going off followed by a dead silence, and then the collapse of the building. Ever single piece of evidence that you bring to the table lacks this. Instead you point to puffs of dust near windows as the prrof of explosives. Find me a video that features explosives being set off underneath a collapsing structure as it falls.

All of these building begin collapse at the bottom. The tops of the WTC (above the point of impact) fell into the rest of the builing with sufficient momentum to bring the towers down. Find me a video of this technique being used to collapse a high rise.

FEEL FREE TO ADDRESS THIS

Its funny, I was actually watching the History Channel special on the survivors in stairwell B who were actually inside the WTC when it collapsed. They mentioned the "bang-bang-bang-bang" sounds and stated matter of factly that it was the sound of floors collapsing onto one another. They mentioned that the building was swaying violently the entire time that they were in it - even to the point where they had trouble standing up. I really wish that you would use genuine scientific analysis instead of just using the words of panic stricken survivors and reporters taken out of context.

8/21/2006 2:56:09 PM

once again, salisbury brings a point that cannot be refuted. Thanks for the input.

8/21/2006 3:09:24 PM

hey, its this thread again

8/21/2006 3:19:57 PM

There are at least 3 solid Soap Box Quotes 2006 replies in this thread, on this page.

8/21/2006 3:26:26 PM

This is some suspension worthy trolling on his part.

He logs on and posts a link captioned "Watch this amazing video"

people respond

He posts a gif of a building falling down

then he logs off.

Maybe I missed something, but aren't discussion boards for.....ah, whats it called.....oh yes....discussion?

8/21/2006 3:26:45 PM

Wow...when this building blows up, it actually goes up.

By the way, wants to know if you can see him in some 9/11 pics.

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 4:07 PM. Reason : well, boonedocks already said the 1st part.]

8/21/2006 4:06:05 PM

^





INDISPUTABLE SMOKING GUN

8/21/2006 4:17:58 PM

I thought that this site right here pretty much kills most of the conspiracy theories out there. Not all of them because some are just fuckin' ridiculous.

http://www.debunking911.com/

8/21/2006 4:43:16 PM

Have you guys still defending the official fairy tale even watched the video?

8/21/2006 4:45:06 PM

^^ doesn't matter.

any debunking or disproving will only be labeled zionist propaganda by salisburyboy

^ yes. its funny though, if i called your version a fairy tale you fly off into a fit about how you're ideas being slandered based on their content and not their merit.

http://www.debunking911.com/

did you even bother to examine this link?

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 4:47 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2006 4:45:40 PM

Quote :

"did you even bother to examine this link?"

Yes, I have. It's slick propaganda for the official/government version of events. But by no means does it "debunk" any significant points raised by those in the 9/11 truth movement.

8/21/2006 4:51:00 PM

how can you be so certain your sources arent just slick propaganda

8/21/2006 4:53:16 PM

Quote :

"But by no means does it "debunk" any significant points raised by those in the 9/11 truth movement."

You read the entire thing already? Thats unbelievable!

Can you go into detail so we know that you aren't just dismissing it after giving it a brief glance and seeing that it doesn't agree with your world view?

8/21/2006 4:54:43 PM

Quote :

"You read the entire thing already? Thats unbelievable!"

I've known of that site for several weeks now, and I've read much of it's content. It's a study in the use of logical fallacies--including use of strawman, only addressing your opponents' weakest points, deliberately avoiding and completely ignoring the best evidence/arguments of your opponents, "spinning" and twisting evidence to support a false position, etc.


[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 5:03 PM. Reason : `]

8/21/2006 4:59:08 PM

^

Quote :

"how can you be so certain your sources arent just slick propaganda?"

8/21/2006 5:01:29 PM

Quote :

"It's a study in logical fallacies--including use of strawman, only addressing your opponents' weakest points, deliberately avoiding and completely ignoring the best evidence/arguments of your opponents"

It addresses the "squibs" that on the WTC.
It addresses the collapse of WTC 7.
It addresses the "pull it" comment.
It addresses the properties of iron in a low level fire.
It addresses the supposed use of thermite.
It addresses the possibility of bin Laden being behind it.
It addresses the structural issues that lead to collapse.
It addresses the "first time in history" comment.
It addresses the molten steel.

Those are your key arguments and it refutes them with great success. What is it ignoring?

Quote :

""spinning" and twisting evidence to support a false position, etc."

Like where?

Cite some examples instead of making some unsubstantiated generalizations.

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2006 5:05:16 PM

8/21/2006 5:23:50 PM

Haha he's trolling too

8/21/2006 6:27:43 PM

8/21/2006 7:08:48 PM

lock....we have a thread for this already...

come on duke

8/21/2006 7:19:29 PM

Wow. I stopped on The 9/11 Commission Report on CourtTV.

They zoomed in on the corner of the north tower at the second before collapse and you could actually watch the structural support at the corner of the building bend and fold in on itself under the weight of the 30 floors that it was holding up (it was visible because the wing of the aircraft destroyed everything around it). Once it gave way the entire upper portion of the tower collapsed downward, resulting in the collapse of the entire tower.

So no, explosives were no used to bring down the WTC.

Of course, its ridiculous to think that any amount of scientific fact, realistic analysis, or careful documentation should shake your belief that the jews did it.

8/21/2006 11:18:18 PM

bombs can bend metal

duuuuuuh

8/22/2006 12:01:32 AM

Quote :

"lock....we have a thread for this already... come on duke "

not this stupid shit again.

8/22/2006 12:32:09 AM

lock...we have a thread for this already...

come on duke

8/22/2006 12:49:15 AM

ntsa

8/22/2006 8:39:12 AM

Yeah, I love that link. We're never going to convince salisburyboy though, so whatever.

8/22/2006 8:45:57 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=403757&in_page_id=1770

Quote :

"Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job' The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an "inside job", according to a group of leading academics. Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries. See also... • New DNA bid to identify 9/11 victims • Flight 93 'was shot down' claims book • Iran's president keeps promise to purge universities of 'liberals' The claims have caused outrage and anger in the US which marks the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Monday. But leading scientists say the facts of their investigations cannot be ignored and say they have evidence that points to one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated. Professor Steven Jones, who lectures in physics at the Brigham Young University in Utah, says the official version of events is the biggest and most evil cover up in history. He has joined the 9/11 Scholars for Truth whose membership includes up to 75 leading scientists and experts from universities across the US. Prof Jones said: "We don't believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone. "We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we're going to get to the bottom of this." In essays and journals, the scientists are giving credence to many of the conspiracy theories that have circulated on the internet in the past five years. They believe a group of US neo-conservatives called the Project for a New American Century, set on US world dominance, orchestrated the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to hit Iraq, Afghanistan and later Iran. The group says scientific evidence over the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon is conclusive proof. Professor Jones said it was impossible for the twin towers to have collapsed in the way they did from the collision of two aeroplanes. He maintains jet fuel does not burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel beams and claims horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled explosions used to bring down the towers. The group also maintains World Trade Centre 7 - a neighbouring building which caught fire and collapsed later in the day - was only partially damaged but had to be destroyed because it housed a clandestine CIA station. Professor James Fetzer, 65, a retired philosopher of science at the University of Minnesota, said: "The evidence is so overwhelming, but most Americans don't have time to take a look at this." The 9/11 Commission dismissed the numerous conspiracy theories after its exhaustive investigation into the terror attacks. Subsequent examinations of the towers' structure have sought to prove they were significantly weakened by the impact which tore off fire retardant materials and led the steel beams bending under heat and then collapsing. Christopher Pyle, professor of constitutional law at Mt Holyoake College in Massachusetts, has dismissed the academic group. He said: "To plant bombs in three buildings with enough bomb materials and wiring? It's too huge a project and would require far too many people to keep it a secret afterwards. "After every major crisis, like the assassinations of JFK or Martin Luther King, we've had conspiracy theorists who come up with plausible scenarios for gullible people. It's a waste of time." But University of Wisconsin assistant professor, Kevin Barrett, said experts are unwilling to believe theories which don't fit into their belief systems. He said: "People will disregard evidence it if causes their faith to be shattered. I think we were all shocked. And then, when the voice of authority told us what happened, we just believed it." As the fifth anniversary approached, the 9/11 Scholars for Truth is urging Congress to reopen the investigation claiming they have amassed a wealth of scientific evidence to prove their version of the terror attacks. "

9/7/2006 12:56:49 AM

OK, so out of ~100,000 college professors in the US, about 10 think that there was some sort of conspiracy?

How can anyone argue with the tenth of a percent?

9/7/2006 2:40:30 AM

Holy fucking logical fallacy.

9/7/2006 2:42:20 AM

9/7/2006 9:11:49 AM

Quote :

"OK, so out of ~100,000 college professors in the US, about 10 think that there was some sort of conspiracy? How can anyone argue with the tenth of a percent?"

Actually, make that 1/10th of 1/10th of a percent.

9/7/2006 9:12:58 AM

So are you telling me that the Bush administration is capable of an ultra-sophisticated plot to blow up buildings and kill large numbers of individuals before the American media and successfully pin it on some crazed Saudi and at the same time is so grossly incompetent that they can't even mount a proper military campaign in Iraq, let alone pump out Iraqi oil after years of occupation making them and all their supporters look like fools?

Either the administration is grossly incompetent or their insanely brilliant; you can't have both.

9/7/2006 12:47:37 PM

Quote :

"So are you telling me that the Bush administration is capable of an ultra-sophisticated plot to blow up buildings and kill large numbers of individuals before the American media and successfully pin it on some crazed Saudi and at the same time is so grossly incompetent that they can't even mount a proper military campaign in Iraq, let alone pump out Iraqi oil after years of occupation making them and all their supporters look like fools? Either the administration is grossly incompetent or their insanely brilliant; you can't have both."

1. Bush and our elected political "leaders" are puppets. The real power is held by the forces of international Zionism/Judaism operating behind the scenes. These hidden forces masterminded the 9/11 attacks, not Bush.

2. The "success" or "failure" of the war in Iraq must be viewed through the eyes of the power elite. Upon viewing it through their eyes, you can see that the war is going very well. The goal is not for a quick US victory. They would prefer a long, drawn-out conflict (meaning billions in profits for arms dealers and in loans to their banks), which results in the deaths of many thousands of U.S. soldiers and Iraqis. Their goal is to maximize the death and suffereing, and further....to make the U.S. look like the "bad guy" on the world scene (eg, Abu Graib, invading Iraq on lies about WMDs). Then they can bring in the United Nations to "save the day"....advancing the global government agenda.

9/7/2006 1:02:05 PM