Research what happened for yourself. Unless you want to live in fantasy land.
sharei did and here what i believe to be the thruth and was makes more sense.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
Man, just by looking at the picture of the said place where this flight supposely crash, all I see is trash all around. No real sign of any plane parts. That really just look like a dumpster. Okay take me for an idiot, I'm okay with that, but seriously if you want to convince me that it was indeed a crash, show me something that at least look like a catastrophic area.
shareSo taran-rod, what sort of debris would you think would result from a 757 impacting the ground, 40 degrees nose low, inverted, at 560 mph?
shareBroken pieces of a plane. And bodies. Even the coroner said (paraphrasing here), "I stopped being a coroner after a (little while) because there weren't any bodies there."
Watch "Loose Change". See for yourself.
http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2013/02/shanksville-pennsylvania-on-911.html
"I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this."
"Where I am now is, I've whittled it down to a very basic statement that I think a lot of people can agree on: There was a cover-up of some kind. The only question is what they were covering up, how far [up] it goes, how deep it runs, and how many asses would be on the line if the truth actually came out.
"I still support the movement, [but was sucked into] a hardcore mentality that it was almost too easy to get into back then, because the war had just started and everybody was just so pissed off.
"It was easy to distrust everything because there was nothing you could trust." - Dylan Avery, Slate Magazine, September 2011
You quoted this before. Is this supposed to convince people to give up on 9/11 conspiracy theories, too? Because it doesn't really make an argument AGAINST those theories.
And Dylan Avery isn't some kind of Messiah to the 9/11 Truth Movement. All he did was package all the theories that were already there into a neat little documentary.
Dylan Avery no longer believes in his own work (i.e.: the various permutations of Loose Change), ergo it would behoove conspiracy theorists to follow his example. The truth is not in those videos.
share"Follow his example"? Oh, so you DO think he's some kind of 9/11 prophet. Well, he's not. Whether he's there or not, the ideas, the theories, the speculations and the questions are all still there. He's just a filmmaker who packaged it together.
And he does not say he "no longer believes" in it, either. It consumed his life and, understandably, he had to get away from it. A close friend and fellow truther committed suicide. He's weary and wary of it. Where does he say he "no longer believes" in it?
Quote it please.
Already did. He's no longer in that "hardcore mentality" and is no longer certain of what was being covered up. Thus he no longer accepts his videos as gospel. He's moved on yet here we are with people still citing Loose Change. As I said before, the fact that he's moved on and they have not should be a clue that they're in way too deep.
Personally, I agree with the notion that there was a cover up. However, the truth is not out there. It died with Mohamed Atta, et al.
Well, I disagree with how you're trying to interpret his words.
Backing away doesn't mean he "no longer believes."
And people can still quote Loose Change because Loose Change is itself a collection of quotes from OTHER PEOPLE.
It's NOT gospel. Avery isn't Jesus. His words aren't sacred.
You're agreeing that those videos are not infallible truth, then?
Definition of gospel
4
: something accepted or promoted as infallible truth...
Is that the best you've got?
Did I ever say Loose Change is infallible truth?
It's just a video collection of other people's research and quotes and video clips. Each one might have some truth or at least have things worth looking into.
What about you? You think the official 9/11 story is "infallible truth"?
Most of the so-called "research" is either A)An edited misinterpretation, or B)a flat-out scam, or C)Complete falsehoods.
If you have a chance, give me one example...
shareI'm sure you've heard of the B-25 collision with the Empire State Building in 1945 that they thought was a B-52 that crashed there "sometime in the '50's or '60's."
Kamal Obeid
S.E. Structural Engineer
"Structural engineers and other building professionals need to understand that these buildings did not fail the way they are claimed to have failed."
Scott Grainger
P.E., Forensic Fire Protection Engineer
"Structural steel frame high-rise buildings simply do not collapse due to fire."
Ed Munyak
P.E., 25-Year Fire Protection and Mechanical Engineer
"Even one global collapse would have been extraordinary, but to have 3 occur in one day was just beyond comprehension."
David Chandler
B.S Physics, M.S. Mathematics
"People with scientific and engineering backgrounds are looking at the 3 WTC collapses, and what they see is very definite evidence of explosive demolition, as opposed to a "natural" catastrophe."
Jerry Lobdill
B.S.Ch.E., Physicist/Chemical Engineer
"All the eyewitness testimony and video evidence supports only controlled demolition as the cause of destruction for all 3 WTC buildings."
Robert Podolsky
M.S., Physicist/Engineer
"All 3 WTC buildings fell way faster than they would have had there been any resistance from the lower part of the building."
Gery Warner
P.E. Mechanical Engineer
"Molten aluminum is silver. It looks like mercury. The molten metal pouring out of the South Tower is indicative of molten iron, not aluminum.”
William Brinnier
25-Year Architect
"Not hit by a plane, with small fires and little damage from debris, there was just no logical explanation for Building 7 to come straight down through what was the path of greatest resistance in under 7 seconds."
Dan Barnum
FAIA, High-Rise Architect
"The tops of the buildings were basically disintegrated."
Frank Cullinan
P.E., Civil Engineer
"It was shocking how fast the buildings collapsed. Tens of thousands of structural connections had to fail not only nearly simultaneously, but in sequential order.”
Anthony Szamboti
B.S.M.E., Mechanical Engineer
"The tons of molten metal under just the three WTC buildings that collapsed made me realize that what we're being told about how they collapsed is false."
Casey Pfeiffer
S.E. Structural Engineer
"Even if a floor were to collapse it still wouldn't be able to collapse all of the connections simultaneously at the rate that it did without secondary explosions."
William Rice
P.E., Civil/Structural Engineer
"Watching Building 7 collapse in under 7 seconds, after watching the Twin Towers collapse, I think most anyone would recognize these as controlled demolitions."
Steven Jones
Ph,D., Physicist, Former Brigham Young Univ. Professor
"Molten metal in the basements of all three buildings. What is this molten metal? Direct evidence of the use of thermite."
David Gregg
Ph.D., Chemical Engineer 30 years at Livermore Laboratories
"The only way that's known that a carbonaceous material can cause steel, or iron oxide to turn into a molten metal is in a blast furnace. And that's very different than what we had."
Kevin Ryan
B.S. Chemistry, Former Mgr. Underwriters Laboratories
"Thermite -if it was present at the World Trade Center, and created this molten metal that so many witnesses and photographic evidence shows would also explain potentially the fact that fires could not be put out at Ground Zero."
Jody Gibbs
35-Year Architect
"The Twin Towers fell at a speed which can only occur if the vertical structure has been removed."
Robert Kim Ireland
B.S.Ch.E., Chemical Engineer
"3 buildings collapsed on 9/11 but there were only 2 planes, that means the third building, WTC 7, had to collapse for some other reason."
Jason Cheshire
B.S.Ch.E., Chemical Engineer/Metallurgist
"1400º hot spots at the WTC for over a week indicates that there was something very hot going on below the surface."
Kathy McGrade
B.S., Materials Engineering
"In an office fire, you cannot generate enough heat to melt steel."
Mark Basile
B.S.Ch.E., 25 Years in Materials Analysis
"I've independently seen thermitic activity within 2 separate independent samples of world trade center dust. All of the characteristics of the micro-spheres tell me that thermite was used in melting those steel beams."
Robert Podolsky
M.S., Physicist/Engineer
"All 3 WTC buildings fell way faster than they would have had there been any resistance from the lower part of the building."
Niels Harrit
Ph.D., Chemistry
"A new investigation is needed that includes looking for remaining explosives and
thermitic materials in the WTC dust."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5UyynjxAyw&t=2s
1)I've seen this list before. 2)Any list that includes Kevin Ryan and Niels Harrit has zero credibility. Harrit got all his ideas about 9/11 from that croc-umentary "9/11 Mysteries," not from science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5IWll8J1wU&list=PL7990E23144907A6B&index=31
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3ZBEmjzwLg&list=PL7990E23144907A6B&index=99&t=7s
Don't forget cold fusion specialist Steven Jones with those samples collected from some apartment weeks after the fact then sent without any chain of custody. Forming a conclusion then running tests to support said conclusion and only said conclusion is about as unscientific as one can get.
And what, exactly, would water expert Kevin Ryan know about thermite?
Ooh, good point. Hey, David Chandler's a moron too. He thinks they fires at WTC were all teeny tiny, and uses Edna Cintron in the hole made by Flight 11 as part of his "evidence."
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/01/david-chandler.html
Did I ever say Loose Change is infallible truth?That wasn't for your benefit. That was for those like MikeO_64. You know, the one who suggested watching Loose Change as if it's supposed to be evidence of something?
It's just a video collection of other people's research and quotes and video clips. Each one might have some truth or at least have things worth looking into.Like those "pods" in the original version then never mentioned again?
What about you? You think the official 9/11 story is "infallible truth"?You don't pay attention too well, do you?
Tom_Veil » Thu Nov 17 2016 17:22:26share
Post Edited: Thu Nov 17 2016 17:44:45
Personally, I agree with the notion that there was a cover up.
It always makes me laugh when people like you still come along and project your nonsense. I HAVE researched what happened with credible sources, not Alex Jones and whoever else. The "fantasy land" is the land of the conspiracy theorists to this event. Occam's Razor, look it up.
So the big hole in the ground was a hologram to fool those who were there?
Do you think a plane can disappear into the ground like that?
Or is United 93 an "exception"?
Sad that you're one of those fools who believe it "disappeared," and not shattered into pieces on impact which would be the most logical scenario.
Uh, no, I'm not, but that is the official story. The first people to investigate found thousands of little pieces but couldn't find the bigger pieces. The FBI took over and then they began to find the bigger pieces as they dug into the ground. So, officially, it shattered into pieces but also it DID "disappear" into the ground.
But there are holes in that story, too.
The first people to investigate found thousands of little pieces but couldn't find the bigger pieces.