9/11 truth now!

Do you mean knew about it or found out about it when bombs were going off around them?

And I don't know how many liars you have encountered in your life but I know 2 rules they go by. "Never admit anything" and "deny it till the end". Someone who was involved coming clean is not going to happen. Ever.

I do not think any firemen or policemen had anything to do with killing anyone on 9/11.

 

Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.
Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times

 

Again though, these are all people who were in the heat of a disaster trying to recall events later. None of them are engineering experts and none of them were paying attention to any physical aspects of what was going on, just trying to find survivors in a disaster of epic proportions. Remember what happens when we use a few people who we think should have sense of authority on something vs overwhelming opinion from other survivors.

For example, the Titanic, the great majority of survivors said they saw the ship break in 2 before it went under. However a few survivors, mainly crew members who probably thought a ship could never break in 2 like that, including the highest ranking crew survivor, 2nd officer Lightoller said the ship sank intact. What was ignored though was the fact himself among others had been on the ship till near the end and were not sitting calmly in a lifeboat watching, yet this was taken as dogma until the wreck was discovered, and sure enough, they discovered it had in fact broke in 2.

Point being a few firefighters and policemen who were in the heat of a disaster to rescue people can't be used as evidence of some kind of conspiracy just because they were there as rescue workers. The vast majority of rescue workers agree both towers collapsed because of structural failure, along with engineers and the people who built the buildings. The police and firemen are just like the general public, some of them will be drawn into the conspiracy because it excited them, they want to believe it. Also, many just want attention since basically since day 2 conspiracy theories have been running all over the place. I mean really, who hasn't blown up the world trade center by this point

 

Do you see my point on how like above there's a never a logical argument to deal with rational thought when it comes up, and conspiracy theorists just spam the internet to try to make their point everywhere?


Again though, these are all people who were in the heat of a disaster trying to recall events later. None of them are engineering experts and none of them were paying attention to any physical aspects of what was going on, just trying to find survivors in a disaster of epic proportions. Remember what happens when we use a few people who we think should have sense of authority on something vs overwhelming opinion from other survivors.

For example, the Titanic, the great majority of survivors said they saw the ship break in 2 before it went under. However a few survivors, mainly crew members who probably thought a ship could never break in 2 like that, including the highest ranking crew survivor, 2nd officer Lightoller said the ship sank intact. What was ignored though was the fact himself among others had been on the ship till near the end and were not sitting calmly in a lifeboat watching, yet this was taken as dogma until the wreck was discovered, and sure enough, they discovered it had in fact broke in 2.

Point being a few firefighters and policemen who were in the heat of a disaster to rescue people can't be used as evidence of some kind of conspiracy just because they were there as rescue workers. The vast majority of rescue workers agree both towers collapsed because of structural failure, along with engineers and the people who built the buildings. The police and firemen are just like the general public, some of them will be drawn into the conspiracy because it excited them, they want to believe it. Also, many just want attention since basically since day 2 conspiracy theories have been running all over the place. I mean really, who hasn't blown up the world trade center by this point

 

Ok now how this works is bring up 1 key point at a time and have Madcap tell you why your wrong. Lets not be counterproductive.

 

Well his points are the ones I made in my post that I posted a few times, the stories of a few random people do not equal conspiracy, I mean almost 1 in 5 Americans don't know the earth revolves around the sun, doesn't mean they should have any influence in anything

 

Now why can't we see the pictures or a movie of the pentagon plane?

 

There's only 1 camera that took footage of the plane crashing into the building, and it's not full motion camera, it's stop motion. There was plane wreckage all over the place at the pentagon, there's plenty of pictures and testimony from ground workers.



A missile as other people say it was would leave no wreckage. Not to mention the fact these planes were being tacked by god knows how many air traffic control stations.

 

I see a piece of something definitely.

 

Well there's numerous pictures from the site, popular mechanics did a whole series on debunking all the myths though and I just particularly remembered those articles so used the picture from there.

 

My favorite one is from the eyewitness who describes the wings folding in upon impact.

 

This would make sense, as to also why there's not some huge hole through all 5 layers of the pentagon, the wings would in fact collapse in on impact at that speed, they're not designed to take that kind of stress and impact.

 

You have seen photos of the holes in the towers I presume. If the Pentagon was a stronger structure it seems the wings would be going faster than the plane for a split second thus throwing them forward instead of neatly tucking back along the body.

There are no wing marks in the photographic evidence I have seen from the Pentagon.

 

Who's to say the twin towers though, 2 very different building designs and impacts. Isn't the pentagon made of some sort of stone on it's outside structure?

 

My point being you can see the whole wingspan in the towers. I don't think whatever the Pentagon is made of would change the physical structure of an airliner. At what point did the plane know to tuck its wings in so it could fit in a 16 foot hole. 16 feet is the measurement that I believe is the official size.

 

As with the twin towers, there was no airplane shaped hole, there was just a big hole in the tower. From what I can see the pentagon does in fact appear to be made out of mortar, brick and ect on it's outside walls which for a short stumpy structure as itself would in fact give it better protection against anything crashing into it.

 

Is that sarcasm?

Ok...It's apparently exposed concrete.
How to Make Exposed Concrete | eHow.com
http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=1

1. [PDF] Pentagon report

 

Those wings do got a smooth flow.

 

What does this mean?

 

The wings flowed into the building. It's in the quote fact from Madcaps post. It's tough to draw the line of what sounds credible or not sometimes.