ae911truth.org

jlew24asu · September 2007

facepollution wrote:

It's not just the two towers though is it? The third building to fall, had no real reason to fall, let alone for it to fall exactly in the same way a controlled demolition would fall, i.e. into its own footprint.

Even simpler question. The official story goes, that the plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized on impact, melting all that steel until it no longer existed, yet they managed to identify all the passengers on board via dna - how so?

Or, how on earth did they find one of the hijacker's passports in the ground zero rubble, yet the fires created at the point of impact managed to melt steel? So essentially these fires could melt steel, but not a paper passport.

Or, the fact that some of the hijackers have been found to be ALIVE, yet the government hasn't addressed this issue.

Or the fact that Bush would not swear under oath during the 'official' investigation, and no transcripts were allowed from any meetings.

And to anyone that does believe the official story: what makes the official story any more plausible than the various conspiracy theories out there anyway? The evidence is equally as compelling, if not more so, in some areas of investigation. The thing that ultimately convinces you, is the fact that it has an official seal of approval. The seal of approval from a government that has been proven to lie time and time again, be it through false data during the elections, or the false reasons for going to war in Iraq.

because you get theories that were just posted today on this board claiming that NO plane hit the towers. nuff said.

and I keep hearing that the "offical" story lays proof in dna they found and a passport. I havent seen this or care too much about it. but finding a passport from that plane? its possible. did you see the amount of papers flying through the air? DNA at the pentagon? doubtful.
hijackers alive? prove it. sure you arent getting the names mixed up? they all sound the same anyway dont they?

RolandTD20Kdrummer · September 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

because you get theories that were just posted today on this board claiming that NO plane hit the towers. nuff said.

and I keep hearing that the "offical" story lays proof in dna they found and a passport. I havent seen this or care too much about it. but finding a passport from that plane? its possible. did you see the amount of papers flying through the air? DNA at the pentagon? doubtful.
hijackers alive? prove it. sure you arent getting the names mixed up? they all sound the same anyway dont they?

Why do you conveniently (and routinely) skip around the impossible "according to the official story" findings?

I really do find it interesting that as new angles come forward some people have no time to even consider the facts objectively with an intelligent mind.

Consider the facts of the matter objectively. This is what we are expected to do when it comes to scrutinizing our government. The forefathers told us, and warned us of this. It is our duty.

Are we to not respect or hold value to their words, but rather rush ahead to automatic conclusion in denial?

What has happened to your patriotism?

jlew24asu · September 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Why do you conveniently (and routinely) skip around the impossible "according to the official story" findings?

I really do find it interesting that as new angles come forward some people have no time to even consider the facts objectively with an intelligent mind.

Consider the facts of the matter objectively. This is what we are expected to do when it comes to scrutinizing our government. The forefathers told us, and warned us of this. It is our duty.

Are we to not respect or hold value to their words, but rather rush ahead to automatic conclusion in denial?

What has happened to your patriotism?

since when is it impossible to find a passport from the plane? or DNA from the pentagon crash? did the find DNA from other passengers? I really dont know. you want to search youtube for me? funny how you find that 100% impossible but find it completely possible (and plausible) that no planes even hit the building. I gotta run.

the only parts of the offical story I believe is that el queda was 100% behind the attacks. and that the 2 huge fucking airplanes that hit the towers, brought it down. the rest I really dont care about much.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · September 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

since when is it impossible to find a passport from the plane? or DNA from the pentagon crash? did the find DNA from other passengers? I really dont know. you want to search youtube for me? funny how you find that 100% impossible but find it completely possible (and plausible) that no planes even hit the building. I gotta run.

Oh, but they found more than one passport and, as well and an "in perfect condition" official boogeyman "terrorist" bandanna. Not even dirty. The passports were also in near perfect condition.

Look at what was found and at the condition of it before commenting on it.

Question....you ever get the feeling I know a whole lot more about it than you pretend to?

RolandTD20Kdrummer · September 2007

Anyone that feel that they have read this thread *throughout* and can offer a new angle to that facts I have presented as truth.....please do.

I want to learn more about it, if you can make me see it.

I want to be wrong. People in this world are continually suffering and dying horrific deaths....and right now.

Does anyone else fell this way?

Do you give a shit?

jlew24asu · September 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Oh, but they found more than one passport and, as well and an "in perfect condition" official boogeyman "terrorist" bandanna. Not even dirty. The passports were also in near perfect condition.

Look at what was found and at the condition of it before commenting on it.

I'd like to see proof of this. I really hope you can.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Question....you ever get the feeling I know a whole lot more about it than you pretend to?

actually no I don't get this feeling at all. you really do wink in the mirror dont you? maybe blow your self a kiss? I do get the feeling, however, that you havent gotten laid in years though. I'd bet the farm on it.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · September 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

I'd like to see proof of this. I really hope you can.

actually no I don't get this feeling at all. you really do wink in the mirror dont you? maybe blow your self a kiss? I do get the feeling, however, that you havent gotten laid in years though. I'd bet the farm on it.

Do you know what is funny/odd, but rather unusual at the same time? I provide information but all you do is attack my posts. It's become so predictable, that just I'm beyond it.

You cannot ultimately communicate with me other than to try and reduce me on a personal level....but you continually try to reduce me just the same

I find that sad.

edited....decided to change a "t" to an "n" in "that"

g under p · September 2007

More and more US citizens are critical of the official account. The respected Zogby polling organisation last week found that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe President Bush and Vice-President Cheney regarding the truth about the 9/11 attacks; 67% are also critical of the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the bizarre, unexplained collapse of the 47-storey World Trade Centre building 7 (WTC7). This building was not hit by any planes. Unlike WTC3, which was badly damaged by falling debris from the Twin Towers but which remained standing, WTC7 suffered minor damage but suddenly collapsed in a neat pile, as happens in a controlled demolition.

In a 2006 interview with anchorman Evan Soloman of CBC's Sunday programme, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, was reminded that the commission report failed to even mention the collapse of WTC7 or the suspicious hurried removal of the building debris from the site - before there could be a proper forensic investigation of what was a crime scene. Hamilton could only offer the lame excuse that the commissioners did not have "unlimited time" and could not be expected to answer "every question" the public asks.

Something else to take a closer look at and read at 9/II-The Big Cover Up.

Peace

Bushleaguer28 · September 2007

facepollution wrote:

It's not just the two towers though is it? The third building to fall, had no real reason to fall, let alone for it to fall exactly in the same way a controlled demolition would fall, i.e. into its own footprint.

Even simpler question. The official story goes, that the plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized on impact, melting all that steel until it no longer existed, yet they managed to identify all the passengers on board via dna - how so?

Or, how on earth did they find one of the hijacker's passports in the ground zero rubble, yet the fires created at the point of impact managed to melt steel? So essentially these fires could melt steel, but not a paper passport.

Or, the fact that some of the hijackers have been found to be ALIVE, yet the government hasn't addressed this issue.

Or the fact that Bush would not swear under oath during the 'official' investigation, and no transcripts were allowed from any meetings.

And to anyone that does believe the official story: what makes the official story any more plausible than the various conspiracy theories out there anyway? The evidence is equally as compelling, if not more so, in some areas of investigation. The thing that ultimately convinces you, is the fact that it has an official seal of approval. The seal of approval from a government that has been proven to lie time and time again, be it through false data during the elections, or the false reasons for going to war in Iraq.

Have you ever seen a car with all its windows up crash? I had a friend that crashed his car with all windows up - the car rolled and afterwards he found a laptop and a binder full of homework over 50 yards down the highway - how did this happen? shit i dunno but it did - so why couldnt a passport be ejected from a crashed plane and later found?

I will admit that this whole "edna" concept that you have brot up so vigorously over the past 3 pages worth of posts was foreign to me until today so i did some research. From what i can tell all the pictures of this "edna" are incredibly inconclusive as far as seeing who this person actually was. It is obvious to me that there is a person standing there, but it says the husband was able to identfy her from her clothing? You look at that picture and tell me that out of all the people working in those towers that there wasnt another woman in the whole building capable of wearing a black top and beige pants? Cuz you certainly cant see her face in any of those pictures. Im not even sure when or how long after the initial crash these pictures were taken so maybe you could fill me in on that. Also in those pictures, she is well outside the impact of the plane and in none of those pictures do i see any trace of a plane - is it possible that she was far enough away from the plane to be able survive thru the heat it produced? After all, it does say that easch floor of the building was roughly an acre in area - you take an acre of farm land and put a fire in the middle of it and tell me a person couldnt survive at the very edge of that acre. And whos to say that it wasnt hot where she was standing anyway - obviously not as hot as the actual fire would havebeen, but ive read that it was "cool" where she was - how the fuck could anybody know this?

Let me pose a question here - You have said that the initial jet fuel would have produced a greater temperature and then burned rather quickly, leaving a not so hot fire burning there after. Is it possible that this woman (whoever she was - for all i know it could have been a dude with long hair cuz as i said, no face is visible whatsoever) was on a floor just above the impact of the crash (the reports say "she" was on a floor "near" the impact of the crash - is it possible that this woman was on a floor just above or below the crash. The intial impact caused the jet fuel to burn as you said hot for a short period of time - perhaps it was hot enough and just long enough to weaken the steel - the fire then cools enough for this woman to make her way outside of the impact hole and produce her so called "wave" - is it POSSIBLE?

RolandTD20Kdrummer · September 2007

If you can't summarize it intelligently within a few sentences.....you're fishing. Please address specifics.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · September 2007

Bushleaguer28 wrote:

Have you ever seen a car with all its windows up crash? I had a friend that crashed his car with all windows up - the car rolled and afterwards he found a laptop and a binder full of homework over 50 yards down the highway - how did this happen? shit i dunno but it did - so why couldnt a passport be ejected from a crashed plane and later found?

I will admit that this whole "edna" concept that you have brot up so vigorously over the past 3 pages worth of posts was foreign to me until today so i did some research. From what i can tell all the pictures of this "edna" are incredibly inconclusive as far as seeing who this person actually was. It is obvious to me that there is a person standing there, but it says the husband was able to identfy her from her clothing? You look at that picture and tell me that out of all the people working in those towers that there wasnt another woman in the whole building capable of wearing a black top and beige pants? Cuz you certainly cant see her face in any of those pictures. Im not even sure when or how long after the initial crash these pictures were taken so maybe you could fill me in on that. Also in those pictures, she is well outside the impact of the plane and in none of those pictures do i see any trace of a plane - is it possible that she was far enough away from the plane to be able survive thru the heat it produced? After all, it does say that easch floor of the building was roughly an acre in area - you take an acre of farm land and put a fire in the middle of it and tell me a person couldnt survive at the very edge of that acre. And whos to say that it wasnt hot where she was standing anyway - obviously not as hot as the actual fire would havebeen, but ive read that it was "cool" where she was - how the fuck could anybody know this?

Let me pose a question here - You have said that the initial jet fuel would have produced a greater temperature and then burned rather quickly, leaving a not so hot fire burning there after. Is it possible that this woman (whoever she was - for all i know it could have been a dude with long hair cuz as i said, no face is visible whatsoever) was on a floor just above the impact of the crash (the reports say "she" was on a floor "near" the impact of the crash - is it possible that this woman was on a floor just above or below the crash. The intial impact caused the jet fuel to burn as you said hot for a short period of time - perhaps it was hot enough and just long enough to weaken the steel - the fire then cools enough for this woman to make her way outside of the impact hole and produce her so called "wave" - is it POSSIBLE?

Ok

A human person...alive..... living flesh and blood.

The person was in the impact zone *alive and waving*......not on fire and dying....

Again, how intense was the fire beyond the minutes recorded?

here we can witness a person alive, and in the impact zone itself. Alive. Right inside the heart of the matter... looking out....alive and well.

No big fire there befiore collapse....a reducing/greatly reduced fire. Cooling if you wish.

facepollution · September 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

since when is it impossible to find a passport from the plane? or DNA from the pentagon crash? did the find DNA from other passengers? I really dont know. you want to search youtube for me? funny how you find that 100% impossible but find it completely possible (and plausible) that no planes even hit the building. I gotta run.

the only parts of the offical story I believe is that el queda was 100% behind the attacks. and that the 2 huge fucking airplanes that hit the towers, brought it down. the rest I really dont care about much.

It's impossible since the passport would have been INSIDE the plane, the same plane that exploded into a fireball, a firball so hot that it 'melted steel' - common bloody sense!!!!

The fact you can't even spell Al Qaeda, and by your own admission don't really care about all the other FACTS, pretty much shows you aren't intellectually equipped to be passing judgement on such a situation.

g under p · September 2007

g under p wrote:

More and more US citizens are critical of the official account. The respected Zogby polling organisation last week found that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe President Bush and Vice-President Cheney regarding the truth about the 9/11 attacks; 67% are also critical of the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the bizarre, unexplained collapse of the 47-storey World Trade Centre building 7 (WTC7). This building was not hit by any planes. Unlike WTC3, which was badly damaged by falling debris from the Twin Towers but which remained standing, WTC7 suffered minor damage but suddenly collapsed in a neat pile, as happens in a controlled demolition.

In a 2006 interview with anchorman Evan Soloman of CBC's Sunday programme, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, was reminded that the commission report failed to even mention the collapse of WTC7 or the suspicious hurried removal of the building debris from the site - before there could be a proper forensic investigation of what was a crime scene. Hamilton could only offer the lame excuse that the commissioners did not have "unlimited time" and could not be expected to answer "every question" the public asks.

Something else to take a closer look at and read at 9/II-The Big Cover Up.

More and more people are asking the tough questions as to what really happened on that day and I love it.

Peace

jlew24asu · September 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Do you know what is funny/odd, but rather unusual at the same time? I provide information but all you do is attack my posts. It's become so predictable, that just I'm beyond it.

You cannot ultimately communicate with me other than to try and reduce me on a personal level....but you continually try to reduce me just the same

I find that sad.

edited....decided to change a "t" to an "n" in "that"

how did I attack your post? I asked for proof. the problem is, you seem to believe, just because you say something, it becomes proof.

then you asked a question and I answered it. where is the attack?

jlew24asu · September 2007

g under p wrote:

More and more people are asking the tough questions as to what really happened on that day and I love it.

Peace

of course people question the collapse of wtc7. hell, so do I. is this indicate that ALL of 9/11 was an inside job?

jlew24asu · September 2007

facepollution wrote:

It's impossible since the passport would have been INSIDE the plane, the same plane that exploded into a fireball, a firball so hot that it 'melted steel' - common bloody sense!!!!

I agree. its common sense that a passport cant be found. is it possible? sure. does it matter if it was found or not? no. airport security cameras and airline records prove he was there. passport? who cares

facepollution wrote:

The fact you can't even spell Al Qaeda, and by your own admission don't really care about all the other FACTS, pretty much shows you aren't intellectually equipped to be passing judgement on such a situation.

sorry, my arabic is a little shaky. and I said I dont care about the offical report. which doesnt have any facts in it anyway, right?. so what facts am I missing?

JamMastaE · September 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

so what facts am I missing?

ALL OF THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

facepollution · September 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

I agree. its common sense that a passport cant be found. is it possible? sure. does it matter if it was found or not? no. airport security cameras and airline records prove he was there. passport? who cares

sorry, my arabic is a little shaky. and I said I dont care about the offical report. which doesnt have any facts in it anyway, right?. so what facts am I missing?

Facts such as the plane that hit the pentagon, managed to smash into the building at such a high speed that it supposedly vaporized on impact, and yet it didn't even touch the lawn in front of it - this coming from a guy who was crap at flying a tiny plane, let alone something the size of a commercial plane.

So if you don't care about the official report, why do you believe the findings?

jlew24asu · September 2007

facepollution wrote:

Facts such as the plane that hit the pentagon, managed to smash into the building at such a high speed that it supposedly vaporized on impact, and yet it didn't even touch the lawn in front of it - this coming from a guy who was crap at flying a tiny plane, let alone something the size of a commercial plane.

who said the plane vaporized? and yes, the guy was said to be a crappy pilot and somehow managed to crash the plane into the building. shocking.

facepollution wrote:

So if you don't care about the official report, why do you believe the findings?

who said I believe the findings? what I do believe from the "official" report is al queda was responsible the attacks and the planes caused wtc 1 and 2 to come down.

Bushleaguer28 · September 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

of course people question the collapse of wtc7. hell, so do I. is this indicate that ALL of 9/11 was an inside job?

This is perfect - of course there will be things that dont make sense, as there are with many events such as this. Sometimes science cant explain everything. But just because there are things that dont make sense doesnt mean that it was an inside job. Bottom line is there is no proof whatsoever that the US Gov't was behind the attacks in anyway except for these things that "dont add up." If there is no more proof towards what you are arguing for then what others argue, why are you so sure yours is correct?

ae911truth.org

Comments

Categories