Contemplate this. Within 30 mins of the first plane striking the towers we had government 'experts' in every MSM interview chair telling us OBL did it while images of the towers crumbling - a first in the history of steel skyscrapers - were replayed over, and over, and over and over...for days after. Its old school mind warfare, like everyone else I fell for it too. But what is incredible to me is how steadfast some will stand entrenched in a false reality no matter how many holes are in the sack put over their head.

We find this for WMD's as well. If it wasn't so sad it would be hysterical. This is what they (tyrants) do - since Nero burned Rome and blamed it on the Christians.

But what is just pathetic is when alternative evidence is presented - then 'conspiracy theory' - the very thing railed against in regards to a very problematic story - is not only acceptable, but immediately plausible. But this shouldn't be confused with how I, or anyone else came to the conclusion that its an inside job. As I've said before, it was years before the examination of evidence became so overwhelming there is no other possible conclusion.

Of course its entirely inconceivable that leaders at the very top of government could ever conceive of such an idea to bring about an agenda - but they did...but then when facts are presented its 'irrelevant.' We won't even examine the Downing Street memo that advocates the exact same premise (a self inflicted wound for the purpose of gaining public consensus and support), or the more recent accounts by executive branch insiders of Cheney's ideas for kick-starting an Iranian conflict (painting up boats in Iranian markings and having them fire on American ships), or the Gulf of Tonkin, or the sinking of the Maine, the attack of the USS Liberty (hell you can read that one right on the NSA's own website) or, as has been recently exposed in the National Archives - Pearl Harbor (an event proactively allowed to happen).

No, no no - but a sloppy glance at a photo: "Photoshopped"...by a couple of guys seeking the rest of the story that our government refuses to give us. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

So here is it is:

The photo perspective - no conspiracy. Marker at bottom is where first photo was taken. Marker above that was were the photos with the obstructed sign were taken. Next marker is where the last photos were taken where the pole is visible. Green marker is location of sign. Circle is the obstructing tree.


Overhead view. Exif data for the shot is by a Nikon Coolpix - shot at 200mm equiv zoom - which is why there is no depth of field. And there's no editing in the exif data history...


So I've wasted my time - now someone explain to me how a time stamp on the Citgo 'Doubletree' video reverses. And why/what was the dude in the scene looking at in the sky while the Pentagon has just blown up behind him?

Maybe Roosevelt Roberts Jr. has your answer.

...



as I said previously: "Yes he was walking down a hill and toward the right as he snapped photos." The first shots from a higher location - which should give us more perspective beyond the guard rail - i.e. a pole. The gov. cars that blocked traffic are not there yet, and they are supposed to be the ones that helped him take the pole out of his windshield - so why isn't it still sticking out of the windshield?



Hmmm. Nobody does, but, based on ??? you do - FL77 hit it. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/drunk.gif" alt="" />

Nice graphics job - your work? Where can I get some of those tree and people thingys I can stick wherever I want to on a picture? Of all the good information that a photo can give you, a GPS readout of where the photographer was standing is not yet included. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />



Let's review your "evidence":

1) A photograph of a light pole that has broken off at the base (as it's designed to do) and you say it was torched - even though there are witnesses who saw the plane hit the light poles and the Pentagon - and even though there were hundreds of people running around the area with cameras who would surely have recorded anything so curious as Dick Cheney torching a light pole, you say this is "proof". <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

2) A photograph of what appears to be part of an engine - likely a piece of a rotor. You say that Rolls Royce (manufacturer of Flight 77's engines) claimed it wasn't theirs, but you can post no statement from Rolls Royce. When did they say this - in your dreams? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

3) You say that Flight 77 was above 400' altitude, did a flyover, but you have no evidence of it flying anywhere after the crash at the Pentagon. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

4) You don't know where the plane went after the crash, but you're sure it didn't crash into the Pentagon. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

5) You want to defend the data in the flight recorder as proof that the plane was at a higher altitude than the Pentagon crash site, but can't explain how the flight data recorder was found in the Pentagon with the clock stopped at the approximate time of the crash. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

6) You have 13 "witnesses" over by Arlington National Cemetery working at a warehouse location who were a considerable distance away and who could tell which side of a gas station a 757 passed, but couldn't tell us where the plane went after the crash. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

7) Because the Kennedy administration once planned to overthrow Castro, you conclude the government is inherently evil and therefore has murdered the passengers of Flight 77 - but you don't know where the plane went for this to happen. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

8) You think "the examination of evidence became so overwhelming there is no other possible conclusion." <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />


Do you know how silly you sound? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Frank

Edit - link fixed... Even the apologists and perps get it right sometimes.

So how should they have "reacted" when hit by two 747's? What exactly would have been an acceptable collapse or implosion? Toppling over to the side? If they would have done that I'll bet people would've been talking about how poorly designed they were and conspiracy theorists would have said that someone detonated a bomb at the base to cause the topple.

It seems to me that they reacted perfectly to their design and that is to pancake on top of itself to minimize damage to surrounding buildings in the event of collapse. No? Does it not make sense that as the core columns succumbed to the extreme heat they would have, through connection of intermediate members, pulled the exterior steel "panels" inward thus creating an implosion effect. Then as the thousands of tons of steel, concrete, framework, office furniture, etc. came crashing down on lower floors the implosion would continue.

The tremors? Have you ever heard steel snap? Have you ever heard a large steel member dropped or even just hit really hard with a large hammer? If so I bet you'd agree that there may be a small "tremor" associated with the sound, since sound waves can cause small tremors or better yet cause a small video camera to shake a little. Imagine dozens of large steel members all snapping at once while the building is collapsing. Think that might be "felt" a block or so away?

I haven't seen it mentioned here but you have before mentioned the explosions heard before the collapse and I can't pass up the opportunity to throw this in as well. Just to let you know, in case you didn't, buildings have mechanical equipment all throughout that will explode when subjected to extreme heat. You know, like the heat caused by thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning. This is a pretty neat video of an electrical transformer exploding. There are also things like mechanical compressors or even fire extinguishers that can explode in extreme heat.

Carlos

A part of me WANTED to believe in the consipracy (not sure why). But every time I watch or read something, and try to look at it rationally/logically, I come away feeling that the truth is much closer to the official explanation than the "truther" explanation(s).

767's - much smaller...Bombs were in the basements - look up Willie Rodrigez (sp?). Lots of other testimonies too but he was the maintenance guy - he knew where the fuel tanks were and where the explosions were occurring and they were on different levels - this was going on before they started coming down.

Let's see what an expert has to say about WTC design - an expert on the WTC's architecture: Frank DeMartini - died in collapse



First of all there is no evidence that these or any other skyscraper were designed for the event of a collapse. They were built to withstand collapse, and indeed - prior to 9-11 and ever since - no steel framed skyscraper (which is what all skyscrapers are) has never before or since collapsed.

Your saying alot here and I just don't have the time to reply to it all right now but lets focus on the main thing - "extreme heat". The common argument is that you had all this fuel burning for...around 2 hrs. Examining the evidence this just isn't true. Most of that fuel was burned up in the massive fireball that followed impact. It was not a large and intense fire. The smoke is one evidence of this. Heavy smoke is evidence starving fire, not an intense one. Secondly we have radio recording of firefighters that reached the impacted floors. And we also have video and photos of victims standing in the impact hole waving for help.

This is intense heat. This building burned for 18 hours - completely.

Here it is following the fire

I apologize for the hokey nature of some of these clips - but the live footage is compelling...

Bombs in the buildings

Video is out of sync - note firemen radio transmissions.

NOVA's laughable simulation - note what is missing, and what is left standing. A Purdue production?? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />



Well now you are saying steel snapped - which is not even what NIST is willing to say. The collapse hasn't happened yet so how does steel under the influence of 'extreme heat' snap exactly?

This is not snapping steel

Note in the videos above - you have no mention of fuel, no mention of fires of an intense nature but rather containable pockets of fire... we hear on the radio in the clip above a radio report from the levels where the plane hit "two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to take it down with two lines." What is the simplest explanation? What is everybody saying? Explosions, explosive devices, dust, and things being blown apart.



Again you're arguing on the premise of extreme heat - which even NIST no longer admits to. And if you listen to those testimonies in the videos above (tons more on youtube - we're just scratching the surface) - you'll notice this was going on - in the basement levels, the main lobby, and floors all the way up to the impacted floors. Even if there was, and there wasn't...intense heat, it cannot explain these explosions throughout the whole buildings.

One floor, collapsing upon another, would sound like an explosion. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

These explosions were long before the collapse.

So, you were there? Because even I'm pretty good with Photoshop and Muvee for Windows. Given the time I could make the explosions a half hour before the collapse...

Wow.