Do people still believe 911 wasnt a inside job?

I told you, Odon, when you concede the point that the towers were brought down in a controlled manner, I may give you my opinion. But given that you have already proven yourself to be blind enough to not see obvious similarities between the collapses of the buildings in the videos, why would I trust you to see or hear anything beyond the obvious without demonstrating the same blind denial.

 

Please accept I do not think it was a CD.
That's my opinion - get over it. Answer a few simple questions.
Why does my acquiescence make you respond or not?

 

You seem to be pretending not to understand why it would be extremely nonproductive on my part to discuss anything with you, since you have, after all, denied everything put in front of your face.

Odon, you lost all credibility when you clearly posted for all to see that you saw no similarities between the collapse of those two buildings in the videos. Readers of this thread are not going to overlook your attempt to deny obvious similarity.

 

and just when you think it cant get more retarded, I was perusing some of the NIST releases on FOIA demand and lo and behold it went from batshit crazy to complete loonacy! LOL

better sit down

I was watching these when something caught my eye:




I thought no no way!




then there it is, yep way!






I laughed so hard I nearly peed myself then realizing the tragedy now I dont know if I should laugh at the comedy cover up or cry over all the dead and the suckers that ate this hook line and sinker

 

I think you might have done the same. That does not stop me from answering questions.

 

Please give up the fallacy you are stumbling over footage as we speak. We can see your photobucket account and all the clips you have there. Some you have not sprung on us yet - but will no doubt at some point. When you do find something - you tend not to bother reading what it actually is.

 

here is chopper 4




and of course there is no hole!

 

I realise why you have a few z's in your username now zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Odon,

If I ask you what would happen if a section of building subjected to the most heat and damage came down at an angle on the rest of the building which was intact, and you say that the damaged and angled section would completely and utterly destroy the larger intact section, I don't call that answering my question. I call that an Official-Liner's version of passable physics. It takes a lot of faith to believe that shit, Odon.

 

And just for the record, what is your take on that thing protruding from the building?

 

This thread is never going to go anywhere. You're all equally ignorant for not realizing that.

 

I don't think anybody is ignorant to that fact. I'll give a modicum of credit to 'scorch' for not descending into farce, though. I just wish he would not attache himself to unhelpful people such as 'Zzap' who has clearly stopped taking any of this seriously.

jewishnazi? -

 

I think it is only completely and utterly destroying a certain section of the building - that then goes onto completely and utterly destroy another section, and so on.

It's called a frozen moment in time. It's the start of what will become a fireball.

Are you seeing how answering questions works yet?

 

Oh, I wouldn't be so quick to say that this thread is never going to go anywhere. I think this thread has gone everywhere it needed to go.

For instance, when undeniable similarities between the collapses of the WTC and another building were plainly and clearly shown, we got to see the mechanism of denial kick in, courtesy of those who have invested too many proud words proclaiming the absurdity of believing in a CD. The ego is a funny thing; it won't let the eyes and ears threaten its throne. Egos are never wrong; just ask one immediately after it has denied what has clearly been placed clearly before it.

LOL! The protrusion is a frozen moment in time? Yeah, sure. And I suppose you're going to say that the banners that the news editors decided to put up on the screen were just frozen banners in time; banners whose appearance just happened to coincide with the appearance of the beginning of a fireball. The beginning of a fireball . . .

As for your evaluation of people and things here, I would like to remind you that the idea, is to meet the challenge, not characterize the challenge or the challenger. You're taking the course of least resistance by simply denying what we've all been shown, and then wanting to move onto your next exercise in denial. Predictable enough, considering all things usually take the course of least resistance--except for upper sections of buildings that have had their structural integrity seriously compromised and are no longer even upright; those things will take the course of most resistance and hold together in a way that will overcome the structural integrity of the rest of the core-structure.

 

There is undeniable similarities between you and Zzap - but you two are not the same (or are you! -dum dum deh).

So you remember the fireball now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q61mREOXeQI"]NIST FOIA: WTC2 Plane Crash (Unknown Videographer) - YouTube



(first vid) Pause (or freeze that moment in time) around 3 seconds - imagine looking from the opposite side of the building. You don't see the long fireball in the other video because the building is in the way.

As for the banners...
Try watching some footage on Youtube with out the banners - extremely easy to do. Try watching footage from different angles, too.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit.html

Was there a fireball?
Was there a plane?

 

1) yes
2) PROVE IT

You are the judge, 100 witnesses say they seen Mr x shoot a man dead and there is a hole in him but no bullet could be found in the body how do you rule on the case. No traceable evidence it entered into the case. No dancing, straight up, how would you be "forced" to rule on that? In real life court. Not some parlor joke.

your down and dirty sewer trial wouldnt make it past prima facia. Thats how weak it is. I'd use you to mop the court room floor LOL


yep and the news media tried to cover things up with their banner in the nose out issue once brought to their attention they did a complete blackout of it and screwed that cgi job up too LMAO



OOPS!

did we accidentally cover up the DAMNING EVIDENCE?



OoOOPS Just a COINCIDENCE!



So what do you think is the difference between your version




and the one I posted?

 

I already have.

It's nice to have an active and imaginative imagination.

The newsmedia have put banners and station identification on their broadcasts for decades.
There was nothing new in that.
It is very intrusive and little distracting - but not some insidious plot to cover up anything.
Like I said the same and other footage is out there with out the banner - you have even posted it yourself.



As for the 'nose out' issue - it is like I said, the start of a fireball - that you can clearly see (above).
The clip you posted - which mysteriously seems to have vanished from the thread (or have I missed it?) Is the reverse angle of the the clip above, albeit heavily edited - as to appear as if it is something it isn't.

Evidence of what? (see above).

 

youve proven nothing except that you do not have any idea what you are looking at.

if this were in court I would have you sanctioned

you dodged yet more challenges to your backwards position, its seems that is your idea of a debate, dodge and duck.

I am glad to hear that you believe there is smoke before fire.



Oh look!

Here is some more smoke before fire!



Look at all those moments huh!

Oh wait my bad that is a demolition.

I know its just a really fast fire!

Thats it fast fire!


nuff said! you said it all! LOL

 

The last clip you posted is about two things. You posited the question: what is going on just below the main 'explosion' - but it also points to the fireball that we are discussing at present. The clip is the same point in time as the supposed 'nose cone' issue. You have proven my point yourself. What am I supposed to be looking at? The fact that the so-called 'nose cone', is infact the start of the fireball or some tiny 'blow out' just below. Please don't try and conflate the issues.

Empty words. Hypocritical, too.

I don't. Your clips just stop at different times and are from various positions to try and prove something that simply is not true.

There is an impact that created a fireball and fires. When the collapse occurred - it would not have created a fireball or a massive fire. There was obviously a major fire occurring in between. It's a little sad to try and use the same couple of video clips and static photos to try and prove a multitude of different theories - because you just end up proving my point.

 

Scorch - notice the structure above the main blast stays intact.