have u noticed how long they take to collapse?in the first video by the way,the concrete is litterally pulled out,not exactly the same of WTC

 

--- That building is clearly South of the Towers - between the camera and the Towers.

--- If that building is BEHIND the WTC ie to the North - it must be absolutely enormous. There's no such building North of WTC. It isn't North of the towers - it is South.


Come on, Sherlock.......

Do they have to fly a plane into it and set fires just to prove the point? Surely not. It doesn't really matter how the collapse is triggered. The point is explosives certainly are NOT necessary - neither to start it off, nor to continue it.

The same principle holds (only more so) the higher and bigger you go. It works on a small tower - it will certainly work on a big one.

 

This thread reached point beyond pointless, it's shifting from actual evidences to demolition speculations, I'm out, if someone take that 100k or prove that video editing guys are wrong, I'm back, until than, enjoy

 

Prove that building is to the North of the WTC.

Otherwise you surely have to accept the obvious.

Try Google Earth or Maps at street view in Manhattan. Go South of the WTC and look up. There's no way that building can be behind/north of the WTC. Look at the scale of it? It would be comparable to the WTC themselves - only much taller. That would be one ugly behemoth of a building. And what is it? If it exists and it is that scale, we would surely know of it? And there's nothing else in shot - except buildings which are obviously nearer to the viewer than the WTC.

I would note that this version of the video is somewhat cropped - making it less obvious that these buildings are all closer to the camera than the WTC.

But anyway - even if it showed what you think it does that's very slim stuff to be using as conclusive evidence that "the planes never hit the towers".

100% proof they say? Seriously, come off it?

Which building is it, if it's so big?


I've had a look, and this is my candidate:

http://goo.gl/maps/Tf2Hm

The link should have you looking NE - which is where the WTC would have been. I'm not certain that building on the left is the exact one in the video - hell they could have changed. But the viewpoint is about right and it looks somewhat similar. I can't work out the exact spot - and things change. But anyway - there's no way there are buildings to the North which would be in shot when looking up at WTC from there or anywhere near there. Else how tall do you think they'd have to be?

It wasn't north of WTC - it must have been south. Else NY would have some enormous, weird monolith north of downtown.

 

Just to be polite, I have no interest in proving anything to you, I already said I'm out of this nonsense, I given more than enough time and energy, I have something better to do, you have both of those guys for debate and one of them is offering you 100k if you prove him wrong, don't waste your time and energy on me, I really don't care *no*

P.S

It's funny how you made your own little debate and argument based on your assumptions and avoided that video on page 5, sincerely I saw you are pulling me in so I put an end on it to save us both the trouble

 

i quit too,i just hope that next time USA attacks themselves to land on a foreign country for economic purposes,they won t involve the rest of the world like they usually do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X6JULjj6hU

 

duskwings

That would be nice for a change *yes*

 

I suppose it was a given that you'd believe he has 100k to give away. And that he would. I don't believe it for a moment. ;)

Love David Sylvian btw. The Moroder ones are the best imo.

Anyway, people can believe whatever they like. Whether it's justified to do so - on the grounds they give - well, that's another thing.

"911 Truth Movement" fits into a fairly distinct pattern of such groups through American history and politics.

Others have said it much better than I ever could.

Try Hofstader's "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" - it's brilliant. 1964!! One might imagine he were writing about 911 Truth and such like today.

 

Agree totally, that's the reason I don't wan to take more interest in this thread than this *yes*

 

I don't wanna get into the 9/11 debate, but I just have to say that I think that description fits the current US Gov like a glove.
Paranoia deluxe.

 

And not you for thinking it? :D

Demand for total triumph? Nah - Obama's under fire from his base for failing to do enough. Total triumph doesn't factor in the least.

hopelessly unrealistic goals? Some attempt to improve healthcare for all.......hardly unrealistic, at least anywhere except America. Etc.

Personally I feel Obama was let down by his supporters rather more than the other way around. And the constant, super-vicious, remorseless opposition of the right, far-right, Libertarians, Militia nuts and all the rest, of course. How does anyone imagine things can change when even reasonable changes to healthcare generate hostility such that apparently Hitler (and Stalin!) are on the march!

It's a wild sort of public discourse.

The least thing Obama (or anyone else) tries to do to actually help working class and poor Americans they are attacked as Communists. Mad.

 

Well, with that kind of simple circle arguments you can say anything about anybody.
But if you think that building an organization to spy on every ordinary citizen in the whole world for no reason isn't more paranoid than disliking such megalomaniac actions, I think your definition of paranoia is kinda strange.

When I say US Gov I'm not thinking about Obama. He's just another brick in the wall and it really doesn't matter which party wins the elections. That's just a circus nowadays.
I'm thinking about the ever increasing gap between the super rich and everybody else while the leaders are selling stupid wars and paranoia based on a bunch of lies and manipulation (war on terror, war on drugs, war on Iraq).
Why no war on poverty, domestic violence, corruption? Because those are ordinary people's real enemies and to fight those you'd have to bring about real changes in the power structure.
Since this is the last thing our dear leaders want, they instead produce fantasy enemies and wars that can't be won and now this crazy idea to control the thoughts and communications of every single person everywhere.
Nothing important has changed during the last years, politics is run by narrow self interest and big money under a flag of fake patriotism.

 

Socialists have never won.

Do you really think there would be no difference between a Socialist government and a ..... Libertarian one, say? Of course there would. But nobody much votes for socialism, though people certainly have the choice. It isn't like socialism is a great secret.....though it's misunderstood, because of 300 years of propaganda against it, presumably.

So, it does matter who wins - but people always vote for the same two parties (in USA). It's different in different places.

Socialism?

Socialism?

I really don't buy all these claims (prevalent in UK too) that "politics is all the same" and it "doesn't matter who wins". Of course it does. But if the mass of the public continually vote within a narrow range of policy options and postures then one can't blame the politicians. Blame the electors, not the people they elect!

There is almost any option you could reasonably want in UK elections - from fascist to socialist, nutcase national or nutcase capitalist. Green, whatever. But people don't vote for them - so they don't get anywhere. And then the public complains nobody else gets in except the same old!!! Ridiculous. Same in USA.

The 99% have all the votes, right? That they don't bother to use it at all, or use it unwisely against their own interests - well, that's up to them.


I found it very interesting that there was an election in Manhattan in the Wall St District several months before the Occupy thing went down there.

Despite all the protests from "the 99%" that we're offered "no alternatives" there was a socialist in the Manhattan election. He got 200 votes. The Democrats and Repubs got 60,000 between them.

The public gets what the public wants.

 

G String,

There's really no point in saying 'socialism' when talking about problems in the USA, because unless they change their electoral system a third party will never make an impact. And such a change will not happen since the laws are controlled by the two parties in power.

So is your view that the people have responsibilities but their leaders don't?
Leaders have a choice too, you know, and this is especially important in a political system that's so rigid (or is it rigged) as the US. Unless there's a friggin revolution there can only be change if the leading parties take some responsiblity.
So the leaders can choose to do what is best for the people and their country or they can choose something else.

I happen to think it's fair to criticize leaders who choose to use lies, manipulation, paranoia, corruption, war, mass surveillance and any other crazy scheme just to maintain the power and benefit themselves and special interests while the society as a whole suffer from less freedom and equality. If we give the leaders carte blanche when the system already works in their favour we're just making it easier for them to continue on that path.

But hey, it's just how I think, and I'm not trying to change your mind. Like I said, I didn't really come here to debate, just wanted to point out that part about paranoia that seemed funny to me.

 

Hmmm I'm not buying the no planes theory for one simple reason

Eyewitnesses......who actually saw the planes, wouldn't that exclude the no planes theory?

 

Why would it, there are ones that claim they didn't saw any plane, what about them, don't throw logic in bunch of people that barely have their own opinion, probably will say anything to be on TV, not mentioning whole purpose of media "coverage", if you can base all your logic on bunch of people and exclude proofs about errors in editing and more errors in hiding that errors later on, everything else that happened in this 12 years, than no theory will satisfy you, they are all flawed because they are based on scam, there is no perfect lie, when you include tons of people in it some of them make mistakes, this wasn't perfect plan, they taught it would be, but it turned out flawed, think about it more, look again at that video and see mistakes that they even tried to hide later on, airplane peaking trough tower the same way he entered, all cameras fading to black moment before the hit, experts with opinions they even don't believe and they wrote a book about it, missing/appearing audio from one footage and guy claimed he didn't tape it and suddenly there is one after all, another overdubbed audio on second and finally guy that made that helicopter error who doesn't have any argument proved by creator of that video, whole purpose was to prove they all were lying, if you can dismiss all that based on some witnesses that maybe saw something, than well, just drop it, it's too much to handle, I know someone is lying when he doesn't stick to one story, they clearly didn't, they made fatal mistakes and tried to cover it up all along, sloppy business and human error, but hey, whatever keeps you sleep at night *yes*

 

while youtubing i had jumped to the same conclusion until it was shown the statisticcs and i was surprised that only 20% of the witnesses interviewed saw the planes,another 2% heard them and only 8% saw them and and heard them.
So,if i really wanted to be paranoid i d say it was some kind of optical illusion (someone claims the use of holograms),i d rather think about the use of drones.
Yet,outside of a certain distance from the WTC nobody saw the planes,they came out of the blue.
If u have ever looked up to the sky on a clear day and saw a plane fly at a normal height,u must have been able to to tell its color,it doesn t appear as a black shadow in the sky.
there r too many incongruences in all the footage that need explanation

again,after a few months from the WTC events, a little plane crashed against a skyscraper in milan,people immediately thought it was an attack,then it was found out it was an accident,anyway the skyscraper was damaged but it didn t break down,and that building is far smaller than the twin towers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ_ZgKCvw38

 

good videos, but a question, how much of the internal steel structure was cut before these buildings were taken down with just gravity?

 

Sorry guys, I just don't accept the no planes theory, I think it's there to throw us off the scent, there's also another theory out there that they used special lasers to bring the towers down, again, to throw us off the scent I'd say

My question is regarding the no planes theory, what about the people on the street with camcorders of different shots that people on the street had, how would they be superimposed into the picture?

I don't like to get involved in speculation, unless there's hard facts or science I can understand, I take everything with a pinch of salt, that includes eyewitnesses, as sometimes they can be mistaken

Any thoughts on that then, about the average person on the street with their handheld camcorders?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoE8Uz2ia3M

 

Guy is video editing professional, doesn't get better than that

Yes, do you have that videos to post?