Do people still believe 911 wasnt a inside job?

Thanks for the last two weeks

 

Odon, did Zzap not post an image of the nose of the plane going in one side of the building and out the other side. I saw it on that day.
I understand why it is that you would ask that I forget what I saw that day. What you don't understand is that if I did, it could be said that I was being voluntarily dishonest.

Did you also really miss the two side by side videos of the tops of both the WTC and another building collapsing. Do you understand that people are looking at those two videos and are now wondering why you would deny the similarities?

When you refuse to acknowledge even the painfully obvious, what do you think the odds are that people who have no blinders on will want to discuss things more complicated than your present critical thinking skills will allow?

If you would have asked me in the beginning of this thread what my point is--actually, I believe I've stated it at one time or another--I would have said that I want to prove that the WTCs were brought down in a controlled manner.

But where were we? I believe it was here:

"Despite the fact that the top of the building was tipping at a 22-degree angle, thereby compromising its structural integrity, do you believe that it nevertheless held together well enough to cause the rest of the core-structure--which does its best work when facing a load from directly above--to completely give-way in no uncertain terms?"

 

How did they edit live footage, Zzap?

 

what do you see here that you do not see sitting in the bleechers?

 

You do not have to forget - just not dwell on it.
I watched footage on 9/11, too.
I did ask:
What happened?
How is this happening?
Who did this?
The questions were innumerable.
I have subsequently seen other footage I was not aware of on the day.
I have also seen and heard theories about that tragic day.
I'm not going to stagnate in the footage of one particular day or one particular point in proceedings.
There was/is plenty of footage on the day and subsequently.
Focusing on Fox news or a few particular images, is not open minded, imho..

Comparing images does not prove one thing or another.

I do not think either you or Zzap do not have blinders on.

I have to take on board that some have said that no planes hit either towers, and that it was a 'controlled demolition'.
I also have to take into consideration it wasn't and they did.
I have to take into consideration what I see/hear in numerous footage, and witness testimonies - that are not speculative but certain.
It's blinkered to ignore the testimonies of people that have said that planes hit the towers.
Even a majority of skeptics acknowledge planes hit the towers.
Why is it so difficult to either say 'yes' or 'no' with regards to planes hitting the towers or not?

I know what your point is. I know what you are trying to prove. It's not the same as answering questions, is it?

Why not answer a few of my questions?

 

Odon, when you concede the point that the collapses of the WTC towers were obviously the result of controlled demolition, we might move on to what I think caused those collapses. Otherwise, what is the point in going down that side road with you. I'm not here to explain how the towers went down in the controlled manner in which they did; only that they did go down in a controlled manner.

You say that comparing images does not prove one thing or another? Well, neither does not comparing images prove one thing or another. But I would guess that providing images for comparison with undeniable similarities would certainly trump your observatiion that such similarities are deniable.

 

...

 

these people have nothing what so ever to prove anything they claim beyond a reasonable doubt but pretend that they do by relying on the worn out mantra "the government said so" [so it must be twu"] All they have is "we think" we estimate, we would guess, and so forth and so on.

I even showed him a 30 year demolition veteran state it was a demolition, yet they stil hang onto anything in pretense it was something else.

You cannot reason with those in denial or have an agenda.

until they can prove it with evidence they can come up with any number of people can lie and since the testimonies about planes are so wildly variant the only positive (factual) means of coming to a substantial determination is the evidence and unfortunately what is normally presumed to be evidence has been fully tampered with and fraud so that leaves us with "they lied" and are not going to "allow" us the truth. There is no reason to hide truth or create cgi overlays for truth.

All else is bullshit.

precisely what was done in america. to the letter! by a nazi regime.

of course communism won.

 

They are not, though. People heard explosions. People saw planes hit both towers.

 

http://www.conspiracy-gov.com/the-new-world-order/bush-family/

 

thanks

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

if they were correct the material evidence would back it up. there is no bonafide material evidence. its the way it is get over it.

 

its a historical fact that bush's were and are nazis, now you want to attempt to muddy that up too. its all in the national archiives, good luck with that.

Now I am beginning to think your positions are beyond agenda and bordering on delusional.

 

Are you a legal secretary?

 

:smilielol5:

 

I do not think it was 'controlled demolition' - that being the point.
You can move on to what you think caused the collapses.
You can answer the point about planes hitting the towers or not.
My opinion should not hold you back.
You just won't answer the point: did planes hit the twin towers?

 

storch, all you will ever get from this person is nothing. in the end it will amount to "the government said so" so its gotta be twu. nothing more. 6 pak on it!

 

Not true. Like I said (paraphrase): Just because I do not think it was a CD does not mean I agree with everything the government says.

 

cgi