Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
joc

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

3,684 posts in this topic

This thread is specifically for the discussion of this particular video. It is almost two hours long...so, I don't expect many will watch it. But if you do, what you will see is a complete and thorough study of the destruction of the World Trade Centers.

You don't have to watch it from beginning to end...feel free to watch any parts of it that interest you...

....the conclusion here is that the Buildings could never have fallen as they did unless they were wired for demolition.

LINK

or

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPF2E4vmf-8[/media]

Edited by joc
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to start leaving this on all the threads. Hopefully it'll eventually sink in.

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is there to sink in? Look at the picture in your post...please, in as much detail as want, tell me exactly what you are looking at.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trick question, there is no picture in my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trick question, there is no picture in my post.

In your link .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTC South Tower falling.

Now there's these things also contained in my link called words. And e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e. From people who actually know what they're talking about.

I suggest you read it. Yes, read. I know it's not a pretty picture, and it's not a Youtube video, but call me old-fashioned that way.

Thanks.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTC South Tower falling.

Now there's these things also contained in my link called words. And e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e. From people who actually know what they're talking about.

I suggest you read it. Yes, read. I know it's not a pretty picture, and it's not a Youtube video, but call me old-fashioned that way.

Thanks.

Have you ever watched the video presented in this thread? Is that video debunked in your link?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently watching the video.

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to start leaving this on all the threads. Hopefully it'll eventually sink in.

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

Please can you tell my why you think you know more about 2 planes being flown into a building than John Lear who has over 19,000 hours of flight time and has flown a variety of aircraft from Civilian to military? (including prototypes and secret spy planes)

Because he said there is no way someone could hit those building with the "training" they supposedly had, even he wouldn't be able to do it first time.

Martin Sheen and Woody Harrelson are part of the truth movement. (surely ther eis a big enough lack of evidence to make them ask questions)

Why has the government stopped any kind of investigation to find answers to peoples questions? Surely if they are telling the truth they have nothing to hide?! i

I'd like to know what your profession is please? And why you would know more than professional architects, pilots and engineers about this?

Edited by Coffey
8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please can you tell my why you think you know more about 2 planes being flown into a building than John Lear who has over 19,000 hours of flight time and has flown a variety of aircraft from Civilian to military? (including prototypes and secret spy planes)

Because he said there is no way someone could hit those building with the "training" they supposedly had, even he wouldn't be able to do it first time.

Martin Sheen and Woody Harrelson are part of the truth movement. (surely ther eis a big enough lack of evidence to make them ask questions)

Why has the government stopped any kind of investigation to find answers to peoples questions? Surely if they are telling the truth they have nothing to hide?! i

I'd like to know what your profession is please? And why you would know more than professional architects, pilots and engineers about this?

My problem with hearing things from 'professionals' is that they'll say different things.

Two of my buddies brothers are pilots in the airforce, one says he could've done it with the same amount of training those guys supposedly did, the other one thinks there's no way someone could've jumped into the seat of jet and done it.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please can you tell my why you think you know more about 2 planes being flown into a building than John Lear who has over 19,000 hours of flight time and has flown a variety of aircraft from Civilian to military? (including prototypes and secret spy planes)

Because he said there is no way someone could hit those building with the "training" they supposedly had, even he wouldn't be able to do it first time.

Ah, John Lear. The man who obviously lost touch with reality a long time ago. Good guy to have in your corner. John Lear is talking completely out of his ass.

Martin Sheen and Woody Harrelson are part of the truth movement. (surely ther eis a big enough lack of evidence to make them ask questions)

Yes, actors are always my first source for investigations.

Why has the government stopped any kind of investigation to find answers to peoples questions? Surely if they are telling the truth they have nothing to hide?!

Mmmmm wrong. Please read the link.

I'd like to know what your profession is please? And why you would know more than professional architects, pilots and engineers about this?

Hmmmm which architects, pilots, and engineers? Yes, because I'm not a raving lunatic, I do know more than John Lear...but you've provided no one else.

I provided a whole truckload of engineers.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTC South Tower falling.

Now there's these things also contained in my link called words. And e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e. From people who actually know what they're talking about.

I suggest you read it. Yes, read. I know it's not a pretty picture, and it's not a Youtube video, but call me old-fashioned that way.

Thanks.

I wonder if Socrates Sr. would approve of your strange reasoning? From your statement above you consider evidence ONLY if it comes from somebody who actually knows what he is talking about. People, actually.

So does this mean that you ignore other evidence, that does not meet your standard?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that is not what it means. I give more credence to evidence from qualified sources because...uh...they're....QUALIFIED. That was the word I was looking for.

If you've read the Republic, you'd realize that Socrates is in complete agreement with that. You, apparently, have not.

EDIT: Dug up a relevant passage. From Book 1.

Enough, I said, of these civilities. It will be better that I should ask you a question: Is the physician, taken in that strict sense of which you are speaking, a

healer of the sick or a maker of money? And remember that I am now speaking

of the true physician.

A healer of the sick, he replied.

And the pilot–that is to say, the true pilot–is he a captain of sailors or a mere

sailor?

A captain of sailors.

The circumstance that he sails in the ship is not to be taken into account; neither

is he to be called a sailor; the name pilot by which he is distinguished has

nothing to do with sailing, but is significant of his skill and of his authority

over the sailors.

Very true, he said.

Now, I said, every art has an interest?

Certainly

AKA, qualified people are the people to ask about their craft.

Edited by socrates.junior
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that is not what it means. I give more credence to evidence from qualified sources because...uh...they're....QUALIFIED. That was the word I was looking for.

If you've read the Republic, you'd realize that Socrates is in complete agreement with that. You, apparently, have not.

EDIT: Dug up a relevant passage. From Book 1.

AKA, qualified people are the people to ask about their craft.

Which in no way should imply that the only Qualified People on this subject are on the 'debunk' side. There are some very real questions here...Just watch the North Tower collapse...and as your watching ask yourself...How did THAT happen? No debunking of anything...within your own heart and soul...how did that happen. How does a building of that size come down so quickly in a pile of dust...leaving behind virtually nothing? How are large concrete projectiles blown 600 feet away from a 'collapsing' building? Is it really possible for two buildings to fall almost identically an hour apart? And for WTC7 to fall 'the exact same way' when it wasn't even touched by any aircraft at all? And...why didn't any other buildings then fall in the same manner?

These are real questions Socrates. They demand real answers. Do you have any?

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is there to sink in? Look at the picture in your post...please, in as much detail as want, tell me exactly what you are looking at.

Let me tell you exactly what you are looking at. You are looking at the South Tower in the process of being demolished...The top of the building is falling away from the rest of the building...but then..somehow...it mysteriously stops and goes straight down with the rest of the building. This is indicative of demolition controlled explosives.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My own heart and soul are not going to give me anything more than an opinion. My intellect, however...

Better leave this here too.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017

This too.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

Curious about WTC 7? Better read this.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

So, in conclusion, I have answers. I just gave them to you. You obviously read nothing of what I linked. You're just using "your own heart and soul", and not thinking critically.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Richard Gage.

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf

@joc Nope, that's not what I'm looking at. That is what you have convinced yourself, with your heart and soul, that you are looking at. Your mind, however, has clearly wandered elsewhere.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with your links are you are listening to the accused. Ive yet to find any expert of the official story side that wasnt somehow, even if indirectly, involved with, or paid by the government.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, the bad ole guvmint put the laws of physics on their payroll? And nobody told me? Point out the specific places where the "accused" are wrong.

And every single person could be linked to the government...paying taxes, etc.

Is Frank Greening a government employee? Looks Canadian to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no need to be a jerk sj. Im just trying to talk to ya.

I gave you a VERY long list of experts who call this story BS. Why is that ignored?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither 'side' is going to trust the other 'sides' analysis of the evidence. One thinks the government is doing it on purpose, the other thinks they're just blatantly ignoring things to get to the conclusion they want (actually that can summerize BOTH sides pretty well).

Are there any points both 'sides' agree on?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither 'side' is going to trust the other 'sides' analysis of the evidence. One thinks the government is doing it on purpose, the other thinks they're just blatantly ignoring things to get to the conclusion they want (actually that can summerize BOTH sides pretty well).

Are there any points both 'sides' agree on?

Probably not. None of it really makes any sense. Three buildings dropping like that? One that wasn't even hit... And just collapsing straight down so fast. How does that happen? Where has that ever happened before? Lots of buildings have had fires...none have ever spontaneously collapsed.

All Socrates.junior can do is point and say...see...here is a list of debunkers....

Socrates.junior? Where is your logical mind trying to answer any questions? Aren't you at all curious how a collapsing building can produce huge chunks of concrete hitting buildings 600 feet...two football fields away...? It seems to me like you just refuse to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1700 architects and engineers. All basically focused along the same points of questioning. The same points that have been meticulously gone over in peer-reviewed papers. All parroting Richard Gage.

That's why I singled out Richard Gage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.