It is the truth that I am after. If I am mistaken on any point, I will admit I am wrong and apologize for steering you wrong. In fact, I will gladly eat my tin-foil hat if proven that "by golly, there was absolutely nothing fishy about 9/11 and no reason for a new investigation."
Discussion participants beware. Those who accuse others of wearing tin-foil hats should be prepared to seriously consider my propositions, act as responsible & respectful adults, and if warranted by the overwhelming evidence, eat that very same hat.
So, who wants to see how far down the rabbit hole really goes? Can you guess the twin rabbit holes that I champion?
In making my case for 9/11 conspiracy, let me first note that the official govt conspiracy theory (OGCT) has not been proven. They haven't made their case, and their arguments are full of inconsistencies, holes, and omissions. The govt has mounds of evidence that they could have released and made public a long time ago and put many outrageous conspiracy theories to rest. But they didn't and haven't and won't, because the evidence doesn't support it. The videos from the gas station and hotel come to mind. Or how about the videos from the airports that conclusively prove exactly who went through security and who boarded the planes? I've never seen all 19, just 2 or 3. For these reasons and many others, the named hijackers (patsies) are in doubt.
Boxcutters? Mention boxcutters in support of the OGCT and you forfeit. Only one reported telephone call mentioned boxcutters. The problems are: (1) seat back phones on that plane weren't operational, (2) cellphones don't work at high altitude, and (3) the trial of so-and-so (whose name I can't spell at the moment) brought forth evidence that the money-call lasted 0 seconds -- never connected. No boxcutters, and TSA now confiscates nail clippers and toothpaste and has you walk without shoes to have pictures taken of your junk if they don't cop a feel as well.
Know who Phillip Zelikow is? While at Harvard he actually wrote about the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. As he noted in his own words, “contemporary” history is “defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of ‘public presumption’,” he explained, “is akin to [the] notion of ‘public myth’ but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word ‘myth.’ Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.”
Dr. Phillip Zelikow is the guy who wrote The 9/11 Commission Report and was an expert in how to misuse public trust and create PUBLIC MYTHS.
For those patriots and Christians who believe and support the OGCT on 9/11 as the God's honest truth, let this be the appetizer into their bitter meal about how our US govt knowingly deceived and manipulated us.
What are your favorite pictures of burned out 9/11 vehicles from the limited-hangout DEW website?
I like the following image of a FDMY Hazmat truck in front of WTC6 on West Street. The remaining upper part of the truck has been peeled and evaporated in areas. The upper part of the cab is gone and the engine block seems to have disappeared. The photo was taken on 9/11 after WTC1 disappeared but before WTC7 collapsed.
The question about the following picture is asked: Why would the front of this fire truck wilt?
How does the OGCT of a commercial jet causing jet fuel and office fires 80+ stories up that then caused structural failure explain the fire damage to these vehicles?
Bat-shit crazy me? I say it was (multiple) milli-nukes and its side-effects (blast wave, heat wave, EMP), because it seems rather Occam Razor, and also explains the building material turning to dust in the following picture.
If you look at earthquake damage and building failures that weren't controlled demolition, they don't pulverize things -- in mid-air --; they don't create quite the dust-up; they result in in-tact pieces of the structure. Granted, the high-rises were taller than most such earth-quake damaged buildings.
I defy you to view this AP Coast Guard Aerial footage and tell me a gravitational collapse caused it. The question people will be asking isn't "where are the towers?" It will be "where is the content for the towers?" because there isn't enough steel and building material in the shallow pile to account for it all. And then naturally they observe and ask "why is there a big ef-ing hole in WTC-6 that looks like another milli-nuke crater?"
After you are done with that, take some time to view the series here.
What will come to light are the many instances of fore-fucking-knowledge by those in the media, as if their producers had the script and was feeding them what was going to happen.
Thank you so very much for finding these impressive videos. They help make my case.
Originally Posted by ab7fhYes, note that the building had no help except for gravity, so it toppled over. This is exactly what we were expecting at least one of the 9/11 towers to do with the tilting upper floors. Why didn't it? And why was that tipping section arrested through pulverization of its content?
YouTube - Unbelievable Building Collapse
So this tiny building fell over on it's own. No explosives were used at all. Why all the "choking dust". No need for "milli-nukes" or any other kind of explosives to create massive amounts of dust when concrete breaks up, that's for damn sure...
From your video, note also that when it came down, it still had big pieces, big slabs, and big things that resembled part of a building. On 9/11, nope.
And from your video, let us also study the dust that was kicked up. It was of a different quality than the pulverization of the 9/11 towers.
Originally Posted by ab7fhO-oooh, yes! I like how this gravitational toppling of the building also kicked up dust. Same observations as the previous one. The dust kicked up was of a different quality; the remains proportionally speaking (from what we can see) were bigger than what the tower's remains were...
Here's another building which fell with out the use of explosives...
YouTube - Earthquake causes building to collapse
Originally Posted by ab7fhYes, the shattering of concrete upon impact with the ground did indeed kick up dust.
And a few chimneys which were brought down by explosions at their bases. The dust clouds were caused by the shattering of concrete upon impact with the ground.
YouTube - The fall of the 4 GIANT Blyth power station chimneys
Now for your next physics assignment, kindly calculate the angular force generated by the top of the smoke stack by the time it has swung around and is about to impact the earth. I'm sure we can agree, that force is substantial and would certainly shatter brick or concrete.
But I'm sure we can also agree that the distance traveled by most of the chimney's mass at (angular) gravitational acceleration is actually greater than the 3 m (vertical) distance attributed to the towers.
Dear Mr. Ab7fh,
Thank you so much for giving me another opportunity to chime in. In your skewed positions, I'm starting to think that you are purposely letting me hammer home 9/11 truth.
Originally Posted by ab7fhAwesome photo! If you go to the dead middle of this and then scan about 1/4 of the way to the left, you'll see the lower portions of one of the towers outer mesh structure leaning against what remains of WTC-6.
Of even more interest, is the big fucking crater in the middle of WTC-6. If you scan your eyes starting from the WTC-6 crater about 60 degrees up, your eyes should catch the neat circular holes in WTC-5. WTC-5 doesn't have much debris on its roof, but according to the govt trolls here, something heavy and massive (and possibly circular or spherical in shape) was ejected from the towers quite some distance to bore those holes in WTC-5.
If you go further to the left, you'll see the remains of the outside of WTC-7 neatly folded on itself. Gotta hand it to Allah for the wonders of that one.
Mr. Ab7fh also gives us a link to this even better photo.
Originally Posted by ab7fhThis almost the same scene as before but from a slightly different perspective. In the foreground is the lower portions of one of the towers outer mesh structures leaning on WTC-6.
Man! Get a load of that big fucking crater in the middle of WTC-6! Also, see again how neat the destruction is to WTC-7 in the background to the right.
Woa! Wait a minute. Go to the top left and scan down the face of that mostly intact building. What the hell put that hole there? What sort of energy was required to launch something into it like that.
When you look at these pictures, you should note that the recognizable debris from the towers is mostly the outer steel mesh structure. But even then, sensible people will be asking "where is the content from the towers?
I mean, hey! The towers were each more than twice as tall as WTC-7, yet WTC-7's relatively short debris pile is still taller than either of the piles of the towers. Although I don't provide it here, consider it another homework assignment to hunt down the aerial footage and the on-the-ground footage (both suppressed for 9 years) that peers into the WTC-6 crater. Let me tell you what you won't find. You won't find sufficient WTC tower outer mesh and debris to account for the WTC-6 crater that goes through so many stories. And as you study WTC-6 from different perspectives, you'll actually see that the WTC-6 crater is actually two craters and that there are the edges to multiple cylindrical-type bore-holes.
For those who believe the OGCT, Allah was indeed great and magnificent on that fateful day!
Mr. Ab7fh's comments are worth parsing.
Originally Posted by ab7fh"VERY high speed", you say? From what? Gravitational acceleration? Or milli-nukes projecting it that far?
Look at the massive gashes in surrounding buildings and you can see where large parts of the WTC ripped through them at VERY high speed.
Originally Posted by ab7fhAgain, consider it another homework assignment to hunt down the aerial footage and the on-the-ground footage to verify that Mr. Ab7fh is lying through his keyboard regarding debris from WTC being of sufficient quantity and mass to create the WTC-6 crater and be found in its basement.
Neighboring buildings demolished from the top down, by MASSIVE debris which fell from the WTC. Where is the debris? Quite literally in the basement.
I like where Mr. Ab7fh says:
Originally Posted by ab7fhYou know, I just might find myself agreeing with this statement if it was milli-nukes that heated the debris to allow it to cut through the internal structure of WTC-6 like butter... which in fact, WTC-6 was not.
The debris cut through the internal structure of the small building like a hot knife through butter.
In both pictures, boys and girls, pay close attention to the WHITE smoke and where it is coming from. You see, if the smoke was black and sooty, it would indicate a normal combustion fire that was a bit oxygen starved. The WHITE smoke on the other hand tells a different story.
Those who have been following crazy old me know what I'm gonna say: "That there white smoke is none other than unspent nuclear material from the milli-nukes still fizzling under the rubble."
Dear Mr. Ab7fh. Man, I really do luv ya for making my case for me!
Señor El Once