Jewish spin trying to pin blame for 9/11 on Bush and other puppet politicians...and divert blame away from the real orchestrators of the attacks (the Zionist power structure):

http://www.forward.com/articles/a-9-11-govt-conspiracy-i-wouldnt-be-surprised-sa/

Quote :

"A 9/11 Conspiracy? ‘I Would Not Be Surprised,’ Says Tikkun Editor Tue. Feb 06, 2007 Rabbi Michael Lerner, the longtime activist and editor of Tikkun magazine, has published an essay saying he is open to the possibility that the American government may have been behind the September 11 terrorist attacks. “I would not be surprised to learn that some branch of our government conspired either actively to promote or passively to allow the attack on 9/11,” Lerner wrote in an essay published in the new book, “9/11 and American Empire: Christians, Jews, and Muslims Speak Out.” Lerner added that he would also not be surprised if it turned out that the attacks were not the result of a government conspiracy. “I am agnostic on the question of what happened on 9/11,” he wrote in his essay for the book, which includes articles by other contributors arguing that a government conspiracy was behind the September 11 attacks. “As other authors in this collection have shown, there are huge holes in the official story and contradictions that suggest that we do not know the whole story.” Contacted by the Forward, Lerner repeatedly insisted that he was, in fact, “skeptical” — a word that did not appear in his essay — toward claims advanced by the book’s other contributors of a government conspiracy. “I’m skeptical about this material, and I wrote this essay with a clear element of skepticism,” he said. “It was clear in my head that I was being very skeptical about what they were saying.” Lerner, the founder of Tikkun and the newly formed Network of Spiritual Progressives, is arguably the most prominent contributor to “9/11 and American Empire.” In the 1990s he gained national attention after a meeting with then-first lady Hillary Clinton, during which they discussed his ideas about the need for a new “politics of meaning.” Since then, he has emerged as a leader of efforts to reconcile left-wing politics and religious belief, calling for a “Spiritual Covenant” to transform America. The Berkeley, Calif.-based Renewal rabbi occupies a distinctive niche on the political landscape, keeping one foot planted in the Jewish community and the other in the world of left-wing activism. Maintaining credibility in both milieus has involved a delicate balancing act. Lerner, for instance, has been an outspoken critic of Israeli policies, but he also has firmly defended Israel’s right to exist. Recently, Lerner sent an e-mail to supporters saying that he had recently spoken on the phone with former president Jimmy Carter in an effort to build support for a left-wing pro-Israel lobby to take on more hawkish elements in the Jewish community. The book in which Lerner’s essay appears is billed as having been “inspired by” David Ray Griffin’s “The New Pearl Harbor,” a seminal text of the so-called “9/11 Truth” movement. The new book includes an essay by Griffin in which he makes the case that the September 11 attacks were likely “orchestrated, like many previous false-flag attacks, by U.S. agents as a pretext for a war to expand the American empire.” In his own essay for “9/11 and American Empire,” Lerner wrote: “For those who watched the reactionary political uses made of this tragedy, it’s easy to conjure up a variety of possible conspiratorial motives that would have led the president, the vice president, or some branch of the armed forces or CIA or FBI or other ‘security’ forces to have passively or actively participated in a plot to re-credit militarism and war. We’ve learned enough about the subsequent ways that the Bush administration lied to the American public to no longer be shocked if there had been some active involvement by them in these deeds.” But, Lerner immediately added, “Neither would I be surprised if, when all the archives were opened and all the communications revealed, it turned out that there was some other non-conspiratorial explanation for elements of the story that currently seem to make no sense.” Lerner told the Forward that he has good reason to be suspicious of the government. “I’ve had a lot of personal experience of government lying and doing things that are very destructive and pretending that they weren’t doing it,” Lerner said. “I was part of antiwar demonstrations in which violence was done and the violence later turned out was being done by police agents. I had that personal experience…. After that, nothing surprises me about what this government would do to achieve what its perceived ends are. Nothing would surprise me. That doesn’t mean I believe it. That doesn’t mean that I believe that that’s actually happening right now.” In his essay, Lerner argued that searching for conspiracies — “even when there are real conspiracies” — tends not to be politically useful. He wrote that focusing on conspiracy theories wrongly leads people to believe that “the major problems we face are those generated by evil people in powerful positions, not on something more systemic.” Lerner wrote that September 11 conspiracy theorists should work to create a “Spiritual Covenant” to heal American society. Still, his essay offered words of encouragement to those who are engaged in such theorizing. “I salute the people in this collection of articles who are doing an amazing job of examining what may prove to be one of the most perverse conspiracies in the history of democratic governments,” Lerner wrote. Asked about this passage, Lerner responded, “It says ‘may.’ This is very tentative. It’s not like what I believe to be.” He added: “This is like a bone thrown to them to say, ‘Well, sure, keep up the good work, go and investigate.’ I don’t feel that this investigation is going to lead any place, but it might, and if it does, I don’t think that it’s going to produce a conspiracy of the president and the vice president…. I would be surprised if that turned out to be true. So maybe I shouldn’t say, as I said before, ‘I wouldn’t be surprised.’ I guess I would be a little surprised.” Lerner said that Tikkun is planning to publish an article by Griffin in its March issue, which would be accompanied by “a little note saying if you go to our Web site, you’ll see why we don’t agree with this.” Although he says he does not agree with all of Griffin’s conclusions, Lerner said that Griffin — who has suggested that the Twin Towers were brought down by “controlled demolition” — draws attention to important unexplained facts about the attacks. While Lerner is willing — if only skeptically — to entertain those who posit a plot by the American government, he has no such indulgence for another popular conspiracy theory, namely that Israel was behind the September 11 attacks. He said that whereas the Bush administration benefited politically from the attacks, and thus had a “plausible motivation,” Israel had no such interest in seeing the attacks occur. “Anything about Israel and the relationship to 9/11,” Lerner said, “I think is total baloney.”"

See? He's open to placing blame for 9/11 on the puppet politicians. That's a "possibility." But is it possible that Zionists or Israelis were behind 9/11? Why no! That's "absurd" and "baloney."

There are several things going on here. First off, the "official" story on 9/11 has now been thoroughly exposed as being a fraud. Now it's time to shift into damage control mode. So, you acknowledge that the government/establishment version of events is false, but you put the blame on scapegoats and divert attention away from the real orchestrators of the crime.

2/28/2007 12:16:29 PM

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

Quote :

"QUOTE BOMBING"

BOLDED TEXT
LINKS

2/28/2007 12:20:23 PM

LINK TO GARBAGE BLOG

CLAIM OF PROOF

LINK TO GARBAGE BLOG

CLAIM OF PROOF

LINK TO GARBAGE BLOG

CLAIM OF PROOF

LINK TO GARBAGE BLOG

CLAIM OF PROOF

LINK TO GARBAGE BLOG

CLAIM OF PROOF

LINK TO GARBAGE BLOG

CLAIM OF PROOF

2/28/2007 12:25:58 PM

ATTN guth and treetwista...

YOU are the ones spamming. Not me.

Just like you and your troll friends are the ones who truly mess up the soap box with cheese threads, pic-bombing, and other trolling. Not me.

But don't let this stop you from trying to smear me as a trouble maker...when YOU and your troll friends are the REAL problem.

2/28/2007 12:36:13 PM

Quote :

" YOU are the ones spamming. Not me."

What the hell you call all your posts that don't have any shred of credibility behind them other than some whacko conspiracy theorist douche nuts making those posts?\

Specifically this one:

Quote :

"1. MSNBC presented an elaborately detailed story about the lifestyle and anti-US philosophy of Osama bin Laden - while both towers were still burning and long before Bin Laden had been accused by anyone. 2. Fox News featured a "man in the street" eye witness who explained in strangely formal language the science behind why the towers collapsed when most engineers and firemen were utterly baffled and in shock by what had just taken place. 3. CBS featured a Bush administration insider (and not identified as such) as a guest who actively worked to dissuade Dan Rather (and viewers) from speculating that there must have been explosive charges placed in the buildings for them to have collapsed the way they did. How was it that these stories - based on no fact, no research and no inquirry - appeared in full blown form so quickly on US news networks and then became part of the core myths of what happened on 9/11? "

How about instead of bolding shit, you do a little more so we can follow what points you are trying to make.

On topic 1,


Fuck it.

2/28/2007 12:44:07 PM

i admit to spamming/trolling with my last post

however thats generally acceptable in this case

i mean if people werent spamming you in this thread it would be 10 pages of just your posts (or at least quotes off of various blog sites) and i'm sure the duke would've locked it by now

btw are you illuminated? why do you seem to have such a massive problem answering questions?

2/28/2007 12:44:55 PM

Quote :

"For example, the media immediately presented "experts" and "witnesses" that offered "testimony" to support what would later become the "official" explanation regarding the collapse of the twin towers and who exactly was responsible for the attacks."

OMG! The "official" story is based on the "testimony" of "witnesses" and "experts"?!?!?!

Sounds like a conspiracy to me!

Quote :

"MSNBC presented an elaborately detailed story about the lifestyle and anti-US philosophy of Osama bin Laden - while both towers were still burning and long before Bin Laden had been accused by anyone."

Bin Laden has had his sights on America since the mid-1990s. Most networks had already done their homework on him. A 45-second description of him is "an elaborately detailed story?" More than likely, MSNBC had an intern google him and then type up something for the anchor to read so that he would be able to say more than "Oh shit, the building is still burning."

Quote :

"2. Fox News featured a "man in the street" eye witness who explained in strangely formal language the science behind why the towers collapsed when most engineers and firemen were utterly baffled and in shock by what had just taken place."

Firemen were baffled? I've read numerous firsthand accounts by firemen (and not just the accounts that Alex Jones presents and highlights for you) that expressed an immediate fear that the buildings would collapse when they first saw it. The term structural failure is "strangely formal"? Would you have believed him more if he said "Durrr, it done falled down"? No, you're just taking issue with him because he said "structural failure" instead of "explosive charges".

Quote :

"CBS featured a Bush administration insider (and not identified as such) as a guest who actively worked to dissuade Dan Rather (and viewers) from speculating that there must have been explosive charges placed in the buildings for them to have collapsed the way they did."

He was attempting to dissuade by offering his opinion? He prefaced the statement with "My sense is..." - that is a statment of opinion, not fact. If you do your homework on him you will also find that he was not a "Bush administration insider". Please do your homework instead of believing everything that you hear on the internet.

Quote :

"How was it that these stories - based on no fact, no research and no inquirry - appeared in full blown form so quickly on US news networks and then became part of the core myths of what happened on 9/11?"

People made educated guesses that turned out to be close to the truth.

If you want to call these details a "myth", then please prove that they are. Your logic is a flawed scientific method where you figure out what you want to believe and then work backwards from there, casting aside everything that might damage your conclusion and magnifying every coincidence as concrete proof.

Quote :

"Lerner added that he would also not be surprised if it turned out that the attacks were not the result of a government conspiracy. “I am agnostic on the question of what happened on 9/11,” he wrote in his essay for the book, which includes articles by other contributors arguing that a government conspiracy was behind the September 11 attacks. ....... But, Lerner immediately added, “Neither would I be surprised if, when all the archives were opened and all the communications revealed, it turned out that there was some other non-conspiratorial explanation for elements of the story that currently seem to make no sense.” "

He's not trying to "pin blame" on anyone. He's just looking at it with the open mind that you lack. But, of course, he's a jew - a rabbi no less! You must demonize him as an agent of satanic jewry simply for being different than you and sharing his opinion.

Quote :

"First off, the "official" story on 9/11 has now been thoroughly exposed as being a fraud."

Really? Where?

I must have missed the post that thoroughly exposed the fraud. Maybe if you post some more links to prisonplanet your conspiracy will come true.

2/28/2007 12:49:33 PM

i love that mr. joshua still takes the time to respond

then salisburyboy ignores him and spams some more quotes


CHEESE

2/28/2007 12:51:53 PM

Its one of those hobbies like origami.

At the end of the day you have nothing worthwhile to show for it, but it sure passes time well.

2/28/2007 12:54:31 PM

I kinda have more fun just posting completely baseless and largely irrelevant comments hoping he'll take the time to respond to them. It takes less energy and seeing his thought out replies of "you are character assassinating me" and "you're a product of the zionist media" to my completely non specific posts is more fun for me.

2/28/2007 1:10:28 PM

i joined campusblender just so i could troll him on two sites. it always surprises me how much fun it is

2/28/2007 1:12:41 PM

Hey salisburyboy, why haven't you ever addressed these videos? I spend a good amount of time compiling these and you never even bothered to look at them.

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 collapsed downward.

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 during collapseis 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.

[Edited on February 28, 2007 at 1:25 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2007 1:25:37 PM

Quote :

"That entire day was planned, scripted and executed. But not without a few glitches."

proof? evidence?

Quote :

"The media was forewarned."

proof? evidence?

Quote :

"Because it was intended for the entire WTC complex to be distroyed."

oh really? proof? evidence?

2/28/2007 3:36:50 PM

Quote :

"oh really? proof? evidence?"

Please. I've provided MOUNTAINS of evidence supporting my positions on 9/11. And besides, you and the other troll brigade members care nothing about evidence, facts, or reality. You only care about supporting the pro-government/establishment position. Why you continue to support the absurd government/establishment version of 9/11 after seeing all the evidence that destroys the official story is anyone's guess. Maybe you're government/establishment shills paid to troll message boards.

But please. Continue your trolling. I'm not posting for people like you anyway. I'm posting for those who care about the truth....who actually care about facts, evidence, and reality...who have eyes to see and ears to hear.



[Edited on February 28, 2007 at 3:57 PM. Reason : 2]

2/28/2007 3:53:52 PM

Why can't you respond when someone provides information that is counter to your "evidence"?

[Edited on February 28, 2007 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2007 4:05:11 PM

Troll on trolla

2/28/2007 4:38:01 PM

Quote :

"Why can't you respond when someone provides information that is counter to your "evidence"? "

2/28/2007 4:47:45 PM

salisburyboy, on several occasions i have tried to have a logical discussion with you about the facts and evidence you present in this thread, and your other 9/11 thread. after receiving no response from you regarding my questions, you now label me as a troll. when have i ever trolled you? please answer me that. please go back through all my postings and find where i trolled you and point them out to me. the fact is, you won't because i have done no such thing. you have now fallen victim to the same things you try to prevent and that is the labeling and smearing of others. you raise a commotion when someone slanders you or smears you but you have no hesitation to do it yourself. and to address this evidence you have provided, we have provided counter evidence and credible sources to discredit everything you have copied and pasted. so please, post this real evidence and proof that i requested in my above response.

2/28/2007 5:04:32 PM

Quote :

"salisburyboy All American 8947 Posts user info edit post block user Quote : "oh really? proof? evidence?" Please. I've provided MOUNTAINS of evidence supporting my positions on 9/11. And besides, you and the other troll brigade members care nothing about evidence, facts, or reality. You only care about supporting the pro-government/establishment position. Why you continue to support the absurd government/establishment version of 9/11 after seeing all the evidence that destroys the official story is anyone's guess. Maybe you're government/establishment shills paid to troll message boards. But please. Continue your trolling. I'm not posting for people like you anyway. I'm posting for those who care about the truth....who actually care about facts, evidence, and reality...who have eyes to see and ears to hear."

DUDE

MR JOSHUA UTTERLY AND EMPHATICALLY DESTROYED ANY CLAIM TO EXPLOSIONS TAKING DOWN THE TOWERS YOU EVER MADE

FUCKING DOMINATED YOU KID

AND YOU DON'T HAVE A SINGLE VALID RESPONSE

YOU THINK WE ARE PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT TO TROLL YOU.

THAT WAS YOUR RESPONSE

YOU'RE A DELUSIONAL UNINTERESTING PARANOID CLOWN

YOU'RE THE VILLAGE IDIOT

HOW ABOUT POST A PIC OF YOURSELF FOR STARTERS IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY

WE DON'T CARE ABOUT ANONYMOUS DOUCHENOZZLES AROUND HERE

[Edited on February 28, 2007 at 5:16 PM. Reason : i hate editing]

2/28/2007 5:08:36 PM

Quote :

"But please. Continue your trolling. I'm not posting for people like you anyway. I'm posting for those who care about the truth....who actually care about facts, evidence, and reality...who have eyes to see and ears to hear."

Any of these people care to raise your hands? I'm curious to see who on TWW actually does support you, let alone believe your merry-go-round of theories.

And on another note, maybe you should consider posting for people like Mr. Joshua, since he tends to take the time to look at your claims and bring forth alternate theories or counter-arguments. Would be nice to see you debate, discuss, etc for once in a long while.

2/28/2007 5:10:02 PM

Quote :

"http://media.putfile.com/jet-into-concrete-barrier This is not a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon on 9/11/01...this is a military test video of an F4 Phantom aircraft hitting a reinforced concrete wall at 500 mph...the purpose of the test was to test the strength of the reinforced concrete used to make the barriers that surround nuclear reactors...very interesting video...hopefully salisburyboy watches"

I posted a thread on this a while back and salisburyboy never commented on the video...so here it is again, in his thread...maybe he'll comment on it...its a pretty neat video

2/28/2007 5:20:56 PM

I don't get you man.

You hate the "Zionist" (liberal) media, and you hate the conservative party in place right now.

HOW DO YOU VOTE?!

Also, I would give you money to call me a kike to my face.

2/28/2007 8:17:00 PM

to be fair, most of the "zionists" are associated with the republican party

2/28/2007 9:52:12 PM

Quote :

"DUDE MR JOSHUA UTTERLY AND EMPHATICALLY DESTROYED ANY CLAIM TO EXPLOSIONS TAKING DOWN THE TOWERS YOU EVER MADE FUCKING DOMINATED YOU KID"

hahahahahahaha

what a f--king joke

3/1/2007 8:05:36 AM

YOU STILL DON'T HAVE A VALID RESPONSE YOU COCK GOBBLING ASS CLOWN

YOU TYPED ALL THIS SHIT INTO THIS THREAD AND OTHER THREADS

AND ITS ALL SHAM

A WASTE

POINTLESS



JUST WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU, ANYWAY? POST A PIC OF YOURSELF, OR A NAME EVEN. YOU ANONYMOUS LUNATIC WASTE OF ENTROPY.

3/1/2007 8:20:04 AM

Quote :

"YOU STILL DON'T HAVE A VALID RESPONSE "

Yeah, right.

And I've "never posted ANY evidence to support my argument" either, right? NEVER! NOT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE!!


You're a joke.

3/1/2007 8:35:47 AM

RESPOND TO MR. JOSHUAS' COMPLETE DOMINANCE OF THE EXPLOSIONS TAKING DOWN THAT TOWER

[Edited on March 1, 2007 at 8:42 AM. Reason : adsf]

3/1/2007 8:41:00 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, right. And I've "never posted ANY evidence to support my argument" either, right? NEVER! NOT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE!! "

FINALLY, YOU SAID SOMETHING RIGHT

ILL MAKE IT SIMPLE FOR YOUR MUSH BRAIN

POST A VIDEO

OF AN EXPLODED BUILDING

THE FALLS FROM THE TOP

THAT ISNT THE TRADE TOWERS



CAN YOU DO THIS?

3/1/2007 9:04:21 AM

has anyone every met sb IRL?

3/1/2007 11:28:37 AM

Quote :

"http://media.putfile.com/jet-into-concrete-barrier This is not a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon on 9/11/01...this is a military test video of an F4 Phantom aircraft hitting a reinforced concrete wall at 500 mph...the purpose of the test was to test the strength of the reinforced concrete used to make the barriers that surround nuclear reactors...very interesting video...hopefully salisburyboy watches"

I posted a thread on this a while back and salisburyboy never commented on the video...so here it is again, in his thread...maybe he'll comment on it...its a pretty neat video

3/1/2007 2:43:38 PM

Hey salisburyboy, why haven't you ever addressed these videos? I spend a good amount of time compiling these and you never even bothered to look at them.

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 collapsed downward.

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 during collapseis 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.

3/1/2007 2:47:36 PM

^

Right. I guess there's NO WAY they could rig a building to collapse in a controlled demolition in a way different from conventional controlled demolitions done in the past. IMPOSSIBLE.

There is evidence that thermite was used to sever the columns in the WTC. Thermite is not used in conventional demolitions, and does not act in the same way as explosives used in conventional demolitions.

And assuming the buildings were demolished in controlled demolitions, would you expect them to do it in a conventional way? Of course not. That would make it WAY too obvious. They had to minimize the signs of controlled demolition, allowing them the chance to make people believe it was the fires and plane crashes that caused the collapses.


[Edited on March 1, 2007 at 4:22 PM. Reason : 2]

3/1/2007 4:19:32 PM

Quote :

"http://media.putfile.com/jet-into-concrete-barrier This is not a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon on 9/11/01...this is a military test video of an F4 Phantom aircraft hitting a reinforced concrete wall at 500 mph...the purpose of the test was to test the strength of the reinforced concrete used to make the barriers that surround nuclear reactors...very interesting video...hopefully salisburyboy watches"

I posted a thread on this a while back and salisburyboy never commented on the video...so here it is again, in his thread...maybe he'll comment on it...its a pretty neat video

3/1/2007 4:22:42 PM

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.

3/1/2007 4:23:05 PM

Quote :

"Why doesn't a single video of the event include the sound of sequenced explosions?"

There ARE videos that picked up explosions. And there are dozens/hundreds of eyewitnesses that heard the explosions.

New York Firefighters Discuss Bombs in WTC Towers
40 second video clip: http://www.prisonplanet.com/032404firefightersdiscuss.html


MORE:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=explosions+in+WTC


[Edited on March 1, 2007 at 4:36 PM. Reason : 3]

3/1/2007 4:33:11 PM

Quote :

"http://media.putfile.com/jet-into-concrete-barrier This is not a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon on 9/11/01...this is a military test video of an F4 Phantom aircraft hitting a reinforced concrete wall at 500 mph...the purpose of the test was to test the strength of the reinforced concrete used to make the barriers that surround nuclear reactors...very interesting video...hopefully salisburyboy watches"

3/1/2007 4:38:35 PM

NEWSFLASH....

~10 foot thick reinforced concrete wall DOES NOT COMPARE to the reinforced brick masonry walls of the Pentagon

3/1/2007 4:42:24 PM

Quote :

"Right. I guess there's NO WAY they could rig a building to collapse in a controlled demolition in a way different from conventional controlled demolitions done in the past. IMPOSSIBLE. "

Seems like if there is so much skepticism out there, this could easily be replicated. Why, over 5 years later has no one tried?

3/1/2007 4:42:39 PM

Perusing through the query results on youtube for "explosions in WTC" is interesting...

Witness heard explosions at WTC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApOt3jdn28A

Quote :

""I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions... three thuds and turned around to see the building that we just got out of... tip over and fall in on itself.""

[Edited on March 1, 2007 at 4:48 PM. Reason : 2]

3/1/2007 4:45:42 PM

Who the fuck are those people? That shit is no more relevant that any cover up you say happened.

3/1/2007 4:46:58 PM

what the hell is interesting about that?

3/1/2007 4:46:58 PM

Quote :

"New York Firefighters Discuss Bombs in WTC Towers"

They never said anything about hearing explosions. They said that it collapsed "boom boom boom boom." Once again you turn to creative interpretation when the facts don't support you.

Why doesn't a single video feature deafening explosions prior to collapse? Watch the videos that I provided and you'll see that explosions precede collapse by several seconds and that a lengthy gap separates the two events.

Its obvious that you haven't watched any of the videos. The fact that you won't even consider any information that may be counter to your opinion shows the tremendous flaws of your examination.

Quote :

"I guess there's NO WAY they could rig a building to collapse in a controlled demolition in a way different from conventional controlled demolitions done in the past. "

So are you admitting that the collapse looks nothing like any controlled demolition that you have ever seen?

Quote :

"And assuming the buildings were demolished in controlled demolitions, would you expect them to do it in a conventional way?"

Why should we assume that? The collapse looks nothing like a controlled demolition.

3/1/2007 4:47:47 PM

Witness - 'gunfire' sounds / 3 big explosions at WTC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NasentrtxdQ

Quote :

""...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all of a sudden three big explosions.""

FDNY - secondary explosions at WTC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVYAPhhMKqw

Quote :

""We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses.""

[Edited on March 1, 2007 at 4:50 PM. Reason : 1]

3/1/2007 4:48:20 PM

alias

3/1/2007 4:50:59 PM

FDNY - heavy duty explosions at WTC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR8RgEHw6p4

Quote :

""As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion.""

3/1/2007 4:52:08 PM

^^^ You posted that clip, then deleted it and posted it in a separate post so that it would appear that you are responding to people. Pathetic.

Collapsing buildings make lots of noise, regardless of how they collapse. You can't simply find a video of a witness saying that the collapse made a loud noise and then conclude that it is evidence of explosives.

Find a video of the collapsing structure - there are videos of it everywhere - that features deafening explosions prior to collapse.

[Edited on March 1, 2007 at 4:52 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM

CNN Report on "secondary explosions" at the base of the towers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B5Yhtf-kmE

Quote :

"Live news report on 9/11/2001. "We've heard of secondary explosions after the aircraft impacted - whether in fact there wasn't something else at the base of the towers that in fact were the coup de grace to bring them to the ground." (more)"

3/1/2007 4:56:17 PM

^ Speculation immediately following the collapse is not evidence.

Someone even commented on the video:

Quote :

"You know how you see fireworks going off, but you hear the explosion a couple seconds afterwards? That's what the "secodray explosion was"...the sound was just delayed."

3/1/2007 5:04:01 PM

e]

[Edited on March 1, 2007 at 5:08 PM. Reason : 1]

3/1/2007 5:04:14 PM

[Edited on March 1, 2007 at 5:08 PM. Reason : 2]

3/1/2007 5:04:54 PM