Do people still believe 911 wasnt a inside job?

Who can accept what you are saying beyond its your interpretation of what you see? Does clearer pictures help you differentiate between orange fire and black darkness? Of course not, therefore it not even a reasonable argument.

Closing your eyes and ignoring the fact that it looked like pure explosions from a bombs and nothing was in existence at the time showing a clear photo of a plane actually slamming into the building?

This is what you want me to believe:






and this was some kid in photoshop!




You want everyone to believe thats a real plane?

that a plane slammed into the wtc?

No explosives right?

Really?

So then you want to believe this is normal too;





that is the normal path for a falling object?

You just blew it with your own pics!

They make fools out of anyone who tries to argue the official lie!

 

What, pray tell is this evidence?

 

or this one:




or this one:

 

only if it was put into a court.


My fav is the one that rockets outward upward and away from the falling debris then does a 90 turn

 

Yeah, bionehead: the laws of aerodynamics. Have you never seen a leaf fall? It is normal, everyday aerodynamics that many objects autorotate as they fall.

But of course, that's in the real world, a place you know nothing about. All those falling leaves are just a government conspiracy to cover up the grass below.

 

Keith,

I don't think you're really hearing yourself. Are you trying to say that the corner crane supports made up the strength of the inner core, and that the buildiers then defeated the purpose of the whole core by removing them? Think about that for a minute, and then come back and tell me why you believe they would do such a thing. They were removed, but please tell me that you do not believe that the purpose of the outer wall was to uphold the core structure. Because you know that's ass backwards, right.

 

yeh we did that tune already and I posted all the way around;












what I think happened is completely irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that what they told happened could not have have happened and it is so incredibly easy to prove LOL



See ALL the way around and virtually no fire yet blew all to hell.

I am so happy hirises are safe that a tiny fire like that can blow them up. makes me feel all cozy inside!

there go odon, does not get any clearer than that!

big bodda boom boom!

 

HUH?


or this one:




or this one:







but thats what separates forensics from the casual viewer

 

WTF??? What have you been smoking?

I am saying that what YOU interpreted as "massively strong" construction in the core was nothing more than the temporary crane structures. They never formed any part of the strength of the core, because they were not part of the building structure. The actual structural elements of the core were much less than what your picture shows.

 

Huh, indeed. Perfeclty obvious explanation for a perfectly obvious real-world phenomenon, and it's totally beyond your grasp. Like, I've been saying, you're just too stupid to be in this conversation.


NEWS FLASH!! Those are pictures of falling debris. Do you have a point?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
Dude, you owe me a new keyboard - I spilled coffee on it from laughing so hard!

You're not even smart enough to be a casual observer, never miind a forensic specialist.

 

You didn't even pretend to answer my question. Where's the proof a plane didn't hit the towers?

 

news flash falling debris does not take a 90 degree turn from a 45 degree upward path.

You dont understand that apparently.

 

how many times do I need to post the cgi'd photos for you?

now you are simply being obtuse

 

The reasonable argument is NOT cropping images to make a point.
The reasonable argument is to watch the entire horrible day as it happened - including how long and where the fires were.
Not manipulating images or using images at points where there are no evident fires.

Yeah, sure, It LOOKED like there were explosions occuring. This does not mean that is true.

More miniscule pictures we can't really see what is going on.
Like I say, watch the event in it's entirety, and don't manipulate images, and ignore the multitude of images/videos available.
How long do you think the fires lasted?
Where do you think the fires were?

If you don't think planes hit the towers, you are in a minority.
Like I said, please do post you theories and evidence to suggest otherwise.
Don't cling to: well, the news media only showed x, y and z.
Don't cling to crappy images that have been cropped.
Open your eyes and see all, imho.
Bring in some evidence that makes the case there were no planes - and not some crappy video.

The more you speak and the less images you post makes me believe you really have no clue about what you think actually happened.
Clinging to images like this is pretty poor.
Sorry.

Post YOUR version of events.

 

News flash: That video reverses direction. You can't tell what direction anything is going from it. If you were to post an UN-DOCTORED video, we might have something to discuss, but then the un-doctored videos just confirm the official account, don't they?

 

you do not get it.

I am not nist or fema or any agency involved in the 911 omission report.




I POSTED PICS ALL THE WAY AROUND SHOWING VIRTUALLY NO FIRES.

This is clearer than ANYTHING you posted or what is used in the 911 omission report!!!!!

SO WTF IS YOUR PROBLEM?

NOT ONE PICTURE THAT i POSTED WAS MATERIALLY MODIFIED. (I bet he does not know what that means)



I do not need to prove what happened, THEY DO!

I am not in a minority, prove it!

They failed. Simple as that.

What do you think happened?

Overwhelming evidence shows them to be lying about well EVERYTHING!

 

Are you saying that those pictures are your evidence that a plane did not hit the two towers?

I suppose that if a water balloon colliding with a dummy head is your evidence that jet fuel wouldn't have entered the building and that a small tower of plastic file racks is equivalent to a collapsing building while laughing about the laws of physics.

You're saying those planes were CGI? Did the government put a giant green screen behind the two towers? Please provide me with something.

 

No. You have posted pictures that show a min' amount of fire.

No, it is not irrelevant. It's called: not wanting your opinion to be open to scrutiny. Therefore deemed flawed.

You are doing it again. Manipulating images.

You are clinging to a 'Towering Inferno' scenario.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjQFA7COMsU&feature=related"]World Trade Center Documentary - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuZpRGLa9yM"]NIST FOIA 09-42: R27 -- 42A0152 - G26D9 (Twin Towers on Fire) - YouTube

A simple question is: where do you think all that smoke came from?

 

Again, selective imagery.

You post dodgy videos. You don't attempt to make your own case for what happened

'They' have put their case across. Now it is your turn. I know why you don't - but it's worth asking you to, just to see you squirm out of it.

 

Yes laughing at how people who believe the official lie have no education in physics. they prove it in virtually every one of their posts. Did you notice that or are you one of them?

What we have been shown is fake.

That I know.

Are you saying something so horribly obvious was not cgi?



You can also stop misquoting me.

Paraphrasing; I said that approximately 50% of the fuel could have entered into the building. The rest would have remaining outside in a huge fireball like the mig. Do you know why? Ever see a plane punch in for REAL?



planes are fragile, they are not tanks;







what do you think happened?