Do people still believe 911 wasnt a inside job?

You found it funny how I worded my post? Good. But I'd say that it doesn't take much to entertain you.

 

It does, actually.

It's not just that post - there has been a little bit of a running theme. I don't really wish to make a big deal of it, though. Honest.

Moving on...

 

Not just that post? Perhaps you care to provide a for instance?

 

that is what I was talking about earlier.

these 2 guys want to debate the finer points of wtc without any of the background knowledge to maintain a cogent conversation.

Had they read any of the reports they would have known what you were talking about rather than using 5 posts demanding an explanation it or any requirement for you to type a paragraph of citations that is 101 911.

bottom line they are both school boys who need to take 2 years to study all the data minimum and get some schooling on cgi, demolition techniques etc etc etc etc etc.

they should be asking lots of question and then wait til test time to come to any conclusions.

 

It was only an off hand comment and a little bit of a joke. Like I said: moving on.
I don't get all worked up over some of the comments you two make - why are you so bothered?

I did know what 'scorch' was talking about (and I did reply) - that wasn't the point.

 

I would not waste any of my time with regards to CGI....as that particular theory is stupid. None of us are experts or even competent with regards to detonations. Some of your videos are testament to that. I think it is reasonable to think if a plane hits a tower at x speed it will cause enough damage for it to collapse. It boils down to the fact you are trying to convince me that no planes hit the towers and that infact bombs (or charges) were placed all over both towers. The evidence is poor from your side. It is an impasse we will never get past. I think we are at the end.

 

Some people consider the testimonies of firefighters who saw flashes of light and heard popping sounds along with explosions that wrapped around the building followed by suspicious looking collapses three times in one day as poor evidence. If you are one of those people, you are in good company because the 9/11 Commission also thought it was poor evidence.

In fact, they thought it was so poor that they decided to leave it all out of their report after interrogating and harrassing one of the First Responders who was actually there--someone who actually does humankind some good.

 

Some people consider the testimonies of firefighters (and others) who saw aeroplanes hit the the towers as poor evidence.

I would say that not one particular firefighter (or others) saw/heard popping sounds along with explosions that wrapped around the building followed by suspicious looking collapses three times in one day. That is the combined testimony (or more precisely first/impressions) of a multitude of different people, also the thoughts of people who were not there at the time - some who also saw aeroplanes hit both towers. I am quite sure that firefighters (and others) heard/saw explosions that day - that does not mean that bombs/explosives were placed in the any of the buildings. However, seeing an aeroplane, over head, hit a building is pretty convincing testimony.
Do you ignore such testimony?

I do not think you have said if you believe aeroplanes hit either of the towers - now would be a good opportunity to clear that up.

 

Ok, Odon, if I can hunt down "one particular firefighter" who testified to hearing and seeing what you just said was not witnessed by one particular firefighter, will you recant?

 

Sure. The aeroplane part is optional.

Could you answer my questions first? : Do you believe aeroplanes hit either of the towers? I'll qualify that with: commercial passenger airlines.

However, seeing an aeroplane, over head, hit a building is pretty convincing testimony.
Do you ignore such testimony?

 

Do you know when the debate has been won, Odon? I will tell you. When the person debating you makes a mistake by saying that not one particular firefighter said he saw this or heard that, and you call them on it, and they ignore you, and instead make a lame attempt to "divide and conquer" by trying to get the people beating their ass to disagree on something. It's a loser's tactic. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. It just happens to be a fact.

 

I'm trying to get your individual opinion.
I'd rather you not stay silent to seemingly not undermine others opinion - who you may fundamentally agree with, but it's only a question - not some "divide and conquer" agenda.
You do have your own individual opinions, right?


I said: "I would say that not one particular..." not "not one particular firefighter said he saw this or heard that..." - you are welcome to call me on it. I won't ignore you (how can I when you have not found that person yet), I will accept one person did. It's seemed unlikely one person did, but I'm not going to ignore the fact somebody might have.

 

Just happen to have it here;

Ill save you the trouble

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg"]EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY! / MacQueen NYFD 9/11 witnesses - YouTube

Over 100 Firefighters heard "Explosions" like a Demolition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHhiRIgzI_c"]more

​

 

Ok, Odon, you seem to have forgotten a previous question of mine: If I can hunt down "one particular firefighter" who testified to hearing and seeing what you just said was not witnessed by one particular firefighter, will you recant?

If you want me to produce that one firefighter, you're going to have to make clear whether or not you will recant should I produce it.

And no, Odon, you're not trying to get my individual opinion about planes. You trying to control the tempo by changing the subject.

You want to know if I have my own individual opinions? Oh yeah, you bet. My opinion is that I'm not going to allow you to change the subject.

Anyway, what do you say? If I can produce one firefighter in particular who said he saw and heard what I am contending he heard, will you recant?

 

Seems to me I am the one who said there is no bonafide evidence that planes went into either building.

So why are you hammering him about it?

Of course you would also say that the buildings did not have a people ejector too.

Hi rises can be quite temper-mental cant they!




funny how the explosion expands then gets sucked right back in.



then how the building explodes above the right wing before the engine even touches it. the left tail completely disappears, the bottom hole appears before the plane hits, but you think its not cgi.




until you can show me something that is NOT CGI, being completely reasonable about this I cannot truthfully agree with you that planes went into the tower.

I mean ANYTHING! ANYTHING that is not so obviously faked. I dont care how grainy it is! What do you have?

That said, if it was a UAV or some other airborne device that explains all the overlays doesnt it.

I have no reason to lie or to fool myself about it.

 

Oops sorry for posting that prematurely. He has already proven that he has not researched any of this and rather than thinking for himself simply hangs what the government news agencies told him to believe.

 

Thanks, Zzap. I have a seven-year old computer that is so slow and damaged that posting videos is out of the question for me. I'm riding it to the ground. Will get another one when I absolutely, positively can't take it anymore. I'm almost there!

 

Don't worry about it, Zzap. There was no way he was going to bet on what he himself had said anyway.

 

agreed! He wont be able to play word twistee games if he does.

Its nice though that like those fake videos that its so obvious.

Now comes the impasse and you know it will be turned around and blamed on to us LOL

Its the same game different day LOL

oh and ps; take a stare at that alleged plane entry clip, tells many stories as to what really happened. I have to laugh that people are so gullible that they dont get how fragile a plane really is.

They show even the very "tip" of the wing going right through the building!

Not so much as one nut or bolt fell to the outside.

yet birds destroy aircraft!





The matrix movie had way better cgi and people dont believe that, but they believe this. If that isnt enough to give one pause!

 

As you can see I did say 'sure'. I also said: 'you are welcome to call me on it. I won't ignore you ... I will accept one person did. It's seemed unlikely one person did, but I'm not going to ignore the fact somebody might have.'

Was: 'EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY! / MacQueen NYFD 9/11 witnesses' the video you were going to post?

Which Firefighter did you mean - his/her name?

The closest one I could find in that video was -- Captain Karin Deshore.

“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." -- Captain Karin Deshore"

She even said (from a debunking website): "I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND, NOT A THUNDER CAN'T EXPLAIN IT..."

She didn't see any aeroplane so obviously there were no aeroplanes.

If it was this particular video - the trouble is people go out of their way to 'debunk' it:

http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm

It's obvious an element of editing is going on in that video.
If you look on the debunking website - a comment about a plane was also mentioned by a firefighter in the 12,000 documents.
Do you think that was the only time a plane was mentioned? Or they saw two planes?
- I did not hear one comment about planes in the video. Strange!

The criteria for a 'controlled demolition' was if the firefighter said 'explosion', and the criteria for the 'official story' was if the firefighter said 'pancake' - which is totally ridiculous isn't it?
Doesn't NIST refute the 'pankcake' theory?

That's exactly what I have been trying to get across here -Just because somebody has said 'explosion(s)' it does not mean explosives/bombs have gone off.

I did not hear any testimony that was exactly:

"flashes of light and heard popping sounds along with explosions that wrapped around the building followed by suspicious looking collapses three times in one day"

But the above quote was close enough.
I didn't hear the last part, which is what I was hoping to read.
I'd already heard the others parts (albeit fragmented).
So I'll partially recant - if that's ok.

I was trying to get your individual opinion about the plane(s) issue...
My last sentence before you responded: "It is an impasse we will never get past. I think we are at the end."
It was not directed at you, but it could have been.
So was I trying to change the subject or stop/draw a line under all of this?

However, I was curious about:

It was not some grand chess game.
It was a couple of questions that you had not answered and everybody else had.