it's 2013 mang

this shit's been so many fucking shades of gray for over a decade, why the fuck bring it up AGAIN now?

what's done is done, what the hell are you trying to prove NOW, fucking 12 years later.

Are you in fact, the uprising against the "secret societies"

If I remember correctly +the one + or whoever brought this up so long ago, people sorta gave a shit about this before dec 21 2012, but now, what's there to discuss?

why are you bringing this up now?

are you in fact, the resurrection of +the one+??

I dont know who the "one" is... but people are still ignorant about something that our own soldiers are still fighting for 12 years later. William Rodriguez is in Iran speaking at a conference against western media propaganda, namely Hollywood... Im betting you never posted on the side of 911 being an inside job... but post now to discourage discussion of it.
Simple question smart guy, why didnt that building in China, which burnt for two days, collapse like building 7?

Also for the record are you saying Rodriguez, who saved hundreds and hundreds of people that day for unlocking doors with his master key and rescuing numerous number of people in various heroic ways, risking his own life... is lying about the explosion in the basement 7 seconds before he heard the plane hit the building?

^ Simple answer, idiot. Because they're two completely different buildings with two completely different fires.

Why don't you and your buddies ever post up the architectural blueprints of those buildings and show how they are the same as the WTC towers, and therefore, the WTC should have stood up as well? Why don't the truthers (idiots) download the data from the various simulations and run them on their own computers to check and see if the WTC data used was "faked" or "altered"?

This data is widely available, and the fact no truther has ever analyzed it (including all those so-called "engineers & architects for 9/11") speaks volumes. Or maybe some of them have, and after finding out it's correct they bury the information. Just like Alex Jones has done in the past.

Example? He used to speak about pyrcocool extensively shortly after 9/11. However after several people pointed out the flaws in his argument (including myself, who was banned numerous times from posting at his site) he suddenly stopped talking about it. Right now if you go to Infowars and search for "pyrocool" you get zero hits. Zero. Pretty interesting considering Alex claimed that pyrocool was dumped on the WTC wreckage to hide the UV emitted by thermite. Oh, he still talks about thermite. Now he's changed to "nano-thermite" but he leaves out any reference to pyrocool. Why did he change his mind? How come he was absolutely sure of his pyrocool theory and talked about it all the to abandoning it later on? These are the kinds of people you trust to get your information from?

For the record, sure, why not? There is a big difference between acting to save a life and saying things that are untrue. This is one of the great frustrations of politics and anything that brings you into the public light. Either:
A: He has done such a great and heroic thing that we must believe everything that he does, has done or will do will be absolutely fantabulous!
or
B: He has done such a terrible and immoral thing that we must discount all of the things he does, has done or will do because he is an horrible and terrible human being!



But let's be clear. Not all lies are willful. With the recent spate of shootings that've been going on down south, it's interesting for me listening to the witness reports. They'll often go something like "I heard some kind of sound, like someone dropped something heavy, and then I saw people running and heard them shouting 'he's got a gun, he's got a gun!'"

So these are people who are sitting calmly wherever they are out in the open and they don't recognize gunshots. Yet this man, whose actions are admittedly quite heroic, who heard some loud noises and believes it was bombs is to be believed? Hell, I don't know if I'd recognize the sound of either gunshots or bombs if I were just going about my day.

Have you watched the first testimony I post of his? He describes seeing a man in the basement whose skin was ripped off from the arm pit area all the way down and hanging off this finger. He was the only one in the small group in the basement to comfort and wrap the live victim while the others were afraid to touch him.

What your doing with your posts is as if you know and watched his testimony and are using your character and smarts to show other members that havent watched his testimony, that Rodriguez could be lying.

Unless you've watched the video, I see now that you like to debate for the sake of arguing.

Lets get this straight, a whole building burns for two days and keeps its structure while a few fires in wtc 7 causes it to collapse on its foot print... unlike anything ever seen before. What kind of magic wizardry are the Chinese engineers using and any other skyscraper that never pancaked with fires for that matter? Was wtc not a modern New York build holding some of the most sensitive data on the planet.

These software simulation datas and Alex Jones references are just stupid... maybe you are as well. You also never said any thing about Rodriguez but what ever... I chose not to debate you.

Lastly I believe no official report was released on the wtc7 collapse and the use of these data simulation because it could be debunked by a high school major.

Man, now whenever I see Scott Baio i'm going to think of you. You ruined Scott Baio for me.

Yes you're right, collapsing buildings have never ignited fires. We never see fires break out after earthquakes or tsunamis :suspicious: Wait a minute, how does water cause a fire? Maybe because buildings are filled with miles of live electrical wiring, natural gas lines, propane, diesel, etc. that when suddenly ruptured become an excellent ignition point, that would just be my guess.

Your example was not subjected to massive amounts of debris striking it, carving out a huge portion of the building on many floors, weakening the structure before fire ever got to it.

Firefighters were there and could see first hand the extent of the damage and fires. Given the loss of so many lives and the dangers of fighting fires in an evacuated building, they decided it wasn't worth risking m ,mm =;ore lives. So many firefighters were heroes that day, but for your conspiracy to work, they would be liars and accessories to murder. But one guy who reports bombs going off while having no expertise with explosives is a hero because his mistaken reports fit your conspiracy narative. Riiiiigt.

Im convinced, you win! :badpokerface:
Rodriguez's testimony is only one piece of truth exposing the lies of that day... that is all I will explore in this thread... you guys can debate among yourselves.

Firefighters explosions 911
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc....1.KyCFTSu7o2o

This might shock you, but explosions do not always mean explosives. For example, many vehicles at ground zero caught fire, fuel tanks exploding and sending an explosive sounding noise through the surrounding area. Also, when buildings are on fire, they can ignite and explode all sorts of flammable containers like arisol cans, diesel tanks used for backup generators, etc.

Many firefighters and other witnesses reported sounds of explosions and many more will tell you this is common with structual fires. No one at ground zero reported any of the tell-tale signs of explosives because there simply were none and too many people of all walks of life had access to the site for them to bbe covered up, removed without notice and so forth.

So one again: explosions != explosive devices
Posted via RS Mobile

Exactly what I was going to say. Hollywood, as amusing as some of it's movies are, is bad for exaggerating the truth. Those giant fireball explosions you see in action movies? They're propane tanks or jerry cans full of gasoline. C4, semtex, thermite, TNT, etc... they all have very distinctive styles of detonations, most of which people don't typically associate with an "explosion."

"No one at ground zero reported any of the tell-tale signs of explosives "
Nice blank statement... I can do that too.
Lots of people at ground zero reported signs of explosives.

If Rodriguez's hour testimony and the people he names and has clips of is a lie, can you point them out? or are you just going to throw out statements of no this and that didnt happen.

A crime happened here, if you dont want to hear the witnesses I could care less what your theories are because I can spin 911 to be a hijacker plot too... its not hard to state fact-less things.

You have yet to show evidence of Rodriguez being an expert in explosives, credentials showing he can identifiy specific explosive devices, how they work, and how to impliment them in a controlled demolition. Did these explosives have the ACME logo with big letters marked TNT? Did he witness Wiley Coyote and the Roadrunner fleeing the scene?
Posted via RS Mobile

Lets see something blows up in the basement lifting him off the ground and seconds after the plane hits the top. An elementary kid can put two and two together... why cant you? Maybe you're trolling this 911 thread for laughs which would be pretty hurting if this is how you get your entertainment.

Why do Truthers never seem to have a concise all-encompassing narrative of their conspiracies? We never seem to see a timeline connecting all the dots. What we do see are various little anomolies with little or no connection turned into 'evidence' of a grand conspiracy involving thousands of people of all walks of life, requiring hollywood-level fantastical timing, funding, occurances, etc. Granted 9/11 was an event like no other and a lot occured that day which on the surface can appear confusing. I know that I too had a lot of questions and my imaginitive mind coupled with a dislike of Bush, shady corporations, and shadow governments wanted to see some connection, a conspiracy because what we all witnessed that day was just too hard to accept. But as I dug deeper, I found each anomaly could be reasonably explained and the evidence was being provided by people with actual credentials. You look up all those architechs and engineers for truth and find the majority design parks and engineer sewer systems, not construct large skyscrapers. Richard Gage lies and does so because he makes money from Truther morons who pay for his books or pay to see him speak.

More than anything I've come to realise that despite all the tools, knowledge, and experience afforded someone, people will take that information and security for granted. People make mistakes. The terrorists reaponsible took advantage of this weakness. All it took was a little money, training, planning, determination, and box-cutters to defeat all the safeguards we all took for granted. Many considered the Titanic unsinkable. It couldcompartments flooded, it had electrically activated doors to seal them, it had wireless to call for help, plenty of lookouts to spot dangers ahead, a collection of ice reports from passing ships detailing size and locations of ice. All this , and yet a simple piece of ice made history.

Why are these elaborate conspiracies the simpler explanation for events over that I will never understand. It's like a religion: "Why is there no rain for our crops? God is punishing us!" - "Why do I hear explosions at ground zero? Must be explosives! CONSPIRACY!!"
Posted via RS Mobile

To add to that, I have to say I find it particularly ironic that many of the Truthers who do go out and say "LOOK FOR WHAT'S REALLY THERE! LOOK AT MORE THAN JUST WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE HAPPENED!", but then grasp very strongly to the idea that a single piece of evidence that fits their views is more accurate than an Engineer's report.

You show them the evidence they ask for, a reasonable explanation of events, and rather than accept it, they shift the goalposts or move to the next unrelated anomaly. Religious people do this all the time in the face of facts.

just to ruin this thread..
http://sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphoto...16089161_n.jpg

:troll:

LOL

The big problem is how they approach their investigations.

Normal people gather all the evidence to try and piece together what happened.

Truthers are convinced they know what happened and then go on a witch hunt looking for anything to support their theory while condemning any evidence that comes up to refute it.

Even funnier is that they claim on many of their sites that they follow "the scientific method" to try and add credibility to their investigations. The architects/truthers even quote John Adams: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." Oh the irony.

Okay guys just keep an eye out for those Muslims and hope this other mastermind gets what he deserves.
http://i2-images.tv2.dk/s/11/1614011...325ca3457.jpeg
I know at the trial the towers recovered hijacker passport, GIF pentagon plane footage, and Pennsylvania crash site plane debris should seal this case. :badpokerface:

Hang on a second. Upon rereading this thread, I realized something kind of..odd.

Let me see if I can paraphrase this:


...Yes. Yes that is what I did.

You mentioned him as a lone person hearing a blast but the testimony has a whole cast of characters and gruesome details behind it.

Which makes it all the more interesting that his cast isn't with him.

I still don't understand why he can't possibly be telling the truth.

Hey CiC. What caused the blast? Was it thermite? Explosives? What kind of explosives were they? What did the blast destroy (or disable) - that is, what was the purpose of the blast? Where in the building did the blast occur? What caused the WTC 1&2 to fall? Was it explosive charges? Thermite? Where in the building were they installed? How were they triggered? Wireless? Wired? Detonator cord (like most building demolitions)?