911 facts no theories

[Fizz]

FIZZ &SFC ARE LIARS.

They wouldn't know how to calculate the precise time of the collapse.

you stated all three buildings came down at free fall speed. thats a lie. saying it makes you a liar. -FACT

calling me a liar is an unsubstantiated claim. (and is also something i would expect from someone in pre-school)

please learn the difference between the two things.

 

[Mr. Jones]

They didn't need to plant anything, anywhere in Afghanistan or Iraq, the war was on and there was no turning back, and nothing could be done about it, nor was when they didn't find any.

I detailed why they would have done it if they were corrupt as you fantasize them being.

"The media have raised the possibility that the US might "plant" weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that this may be another reason to keep UN inspectors out. This is a charge of such seriousness that we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have been conducting an informal colloquium on the issue. As one might expect, there is no unanimity among us on the likelihood of such planting, but most believe that Washington would consider it far too risky.

Silliest statement ever. Not sure what your authors were smoking at the time but it's probably illegal everywhere except Cali.

There would be no risk to planting WMDs in either place. Even moreso there would be no risk compared to the risk of planting anything in the towers, in Virginia, or Pennsylvania where there would be multiple jurisdictions and multiple investigators. That wouldn't be the case in the Middle East. Whoeve said it would be "far too risky" is either an idiot or simply ignorant of reality.

You believe what he hell you want, I'm not making this stuff up and pleading with you to believe it.

I believe the 9/11 Commission Report. Feel free to regale us with your version of events. We both know you won't because if you take a stand, you will have to defend it. So we all know you won't because you have to be able to change your story.

Fact is they didn't because they felt they didn't need to. But at least you wonder why they didn't, that's a start in the right direction, asking, wondering, good for you!
My version of events contains all the things your version contains, except to me there are too many unanswered questions, and I feel it is too important to just dismiss, as do 54% of people polled world wide. Why do you think that is?

 

[Mr. Jones]

FIZZ &SFC ARE LIARS.

They wouldn't know how to calculate the precise time of the collapse.

you stated all three buildings came down at free fall speed. thats a lie. saying it makes you a liar. -FACT

calling me a liar is an unsubstantiated claim. (and is also something i would expect from someone in pre-school)

please learn the difference between the two things.

Exactly free fall speed, maybe inaccurate, but near free fall speed could be considered more correct. The point is they came down waaay too fast, hence all the questions surrounding their destruction.

 

[eots]

Cuntycorn is full of shit

 

[Mr. Jones]

I read the first 15 or so of your facts. They can mostly either be dismissed as having little or nothing to do with the attacks or they can be explained. There is no prove there of any Government involvement. Oh and I am not angry with anyone on here. I simply will not be called a liar by anyone. I think that is rather reasonable.

Well go ahead and dismiss them then. After all you are asking for people to "prove" and show you evidence, then when people oblige, you give it a cursory once over and say"They can mostly either be dismissed as having little or nothing to do with the attacks or they can be explained."
The facts aren't mine, they are main stream media sourced. Go ahead and try to tell us how theses facts don't make for objective questioning of the official version of 9-11 and how they shouldn't steer 54% of people polled world wide to question that 9-11official story. I've linked you to my sources of information that gave me reason to doubt the govs. story, now you link me to your sources that say they are baseless, and can "be explained". I think that is rather reasonable.

Take your facts into a court of law and most of them will be automatically dismissed as circumstantial or hearsay.

This is the problem, despite the questions that the stated facts ( remember, MSM sourced) conjure up there are roadblocks to getting the answers, let alone going to court That in it self is giving reason to speculate a cover up.

Most of us have said that the 911CR is correct on all the major points, there are some unanswered questions.

This is the most reasonable thing you have said, by at least agreeing, that there are unanswered questions. Man, that is what most people are saying in the so called truther crowd. We want them to answer the questions we have, especially considering how huge this was and the wars it caused etc. So we at least have that in common. Does that make us " fanatical twoofers" and "nutcases"? No. It makes you a person that is not easily taken by BS, and demands accountability. After all it is demanded from you all the time by the government, right?

Much of what happened that day, during the investigation, and even some things from prior to the attacks are classified. And they are not classified to hide a conspiracy, but to protect the people of the USA.

Look we don't want the codes to the nukes ok? And if there are things that revealing out in the open would be detrimental to national security, fine. There are many more things that need to be answered, that don't pertain to national security state secrets.

When you have physical evidence that the 911 CR is wrong, let us know.

I am, and
there is. Physical evidence in the very same report you site. Starting with the fact that building 7 is not mentioned. Both the building, and the report are physical evidence, and omitting it from the report is wrong.
BTW, what unanswered questions would you like to have the answers to? Can you indulge us with a few perhaps? I just want to see if we have some we can agree on.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Why was building 7 not discussed in the final 911CR? Easy to answer if you read the report. It wasn't one of their goals to decide why the building fell.

"We have come together with a unity of purpose because our nation
demands it. September 11, 2001, was a day of unprecedented shock and suffering
in the history of the United States.The nation was unprepared. How
did this happen, and how can we avoid such tragedy again?
To answer these questions, the Congress and the President created the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Public
Law 107-306, November 27, 2002).
Our mandate was sweeping.The law directed us to investigate “facts and
circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” including
those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy,
immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist
organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and
resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission."

Now what do I want answered? Nothing really, I disagree with some minor points made in the NIST reports. I believe the 911 CR could have dug a little deeper into who was behind some of the financing. (And they probably did but didn't publish the information) But they both have the major points covered.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Near freefall speeds? I don't think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[Mr. Jones]

Near freefall speeds? I don't think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4&feature=player_embedded#!

You proved my point. 9 seconds, compared to 14 or 14.75. Near free fall speed velocity. Too close, for many people at least, to sweep under the rug and move on. Especially when viewed side by side with an actual confirmed controlled demolition.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwFAnP7_RtY[/ame]

 

[SFC Ollie]

Near freefall speeds? I don't think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4&feature=player_embedded#!

You proved my point. 9 seconds, compared to 14 or 14.75. Near free fall speed velocity. Too close, for many people at least, to sweep under the rug and move on. Especially when viewed side by side with an actual confirmed controlled demolition.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwFAnP7_RtY[/ame]

That is one of my problems with building 7. because of the smoke we never see the southern side of the building where there were reports that up to 10 floors were 25% ripped out. And still there are no sounds that connect to controlled demolition.

 

[SFC Ollie]

OH and nearly 16 seconds is not near free fall speed. that is nearly double the time actually.

At least closer to double the time than it is to free fall time.

15.28 divided by 9.22 (freefall speed) = 1.66 or one and 2/3 the time of freefall.

and for the other tower?

22.02 divided by 9.22 is 2.39 or nearly 2 1/2 times free fall speed.

Free fall? Close to free fall? Not by my math.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Why was building 7 not discussed in the final 911CR? Easy to answer if you read the report. It wasn't one of their goals to decide why the building fell.

So building 7 isn't relevant? Wrong. It is, and how and why it fell should have been one of their goals to explain, it was part of the 9-11 attack was it not? , another casualty of the attack. They mention the 2 towers, but not # 7.

"We have come together with a unity of purpose because our nation
demands it.

And still does.

September 11, 2001, was a day of unprecedented shock and suffering
in the history of the United States.

No there was another day in history that had the same effect.

The nation was unprepared. How
did this happen, and how can we avoid such tragedy again?

Bullshit. There were warnings.

To answer these questions, the Congress and the President created the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Public
Law 107-306, November 27, 2002).
Our mandate was sweeping.The law directed us to investigate “facts and
circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” including
those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy,
immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist
organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and
resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission."

This is were we have problems, as there are things relevant to the public, that they don't address.

Now what do I want answered? Nothing really, I disagree with some minor points made in the NIST reports. I believe the 911 CR could have dug a little deeper into who was behind some of the financing. (And they probably did but didn't publish the information) But they both have the major points covered.

Nothing really but you have a problem with who was behind the financing of the attack?
What causes you concern about who might have been behind the financing? And the minor flaw with NIST? I'm still looking at things and links would be helpful, thanks.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Near freefall speeds? I don't think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4&feature=player_embedded#!

You proved my point. 9 seconds, compared to 14 or 14.75. Near free fall speed velocity. Too close, for many people at least, to sweep under the rug and move on. Especially when viewed side by side with an actual confirmed controlled demolition.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwFAnP7_RtY[/ame]

That is one of my problems with building 7. because of the smoke we never see the southern side of the building where there were reports that up to 10 floors were 25% ripped out. And still there are no sounds that connect to controlled demolition.

Well the video you posted has it coming down in 14.75 seconds, and that is what I based my response on, now your throwing an even higher time at it. Which is it? Regardless, if the 9-11 commission would have thought it relevant, we might know more. This is what people are pissed at, when we say that the investigation is lacking in detail.
Look.. the fact is that the building came down looking to much like a controlled demolition to just dismiss, by the commission, and for most people. We just want to know more then we've been told and to just accept it and shut up. Fuck that.

 

[eots]

Near freefall speeds? I don't think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4&feature=player_embedded#!

You proved my point. 9 seconds, compared to 14 or 14.75. Near free fall speed velocity. Too close, for many people at least, to sweep under the rug and move on. Especially when viewed side by side with an actual confirmed controlled demolition.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwFAnP7_RtY[/ame]

That is one of my problems with building 7. because of the smoke we never see the southern side of the building where there were reports that up to 10 floors were 25% ripped out. And still there are no sounds that connect to controlled demolition.

this is in complete contradiction with the findings of NIST lil Ollie...when are you going too get that through your head ??

 

[Mr. Jones]

.... And still there are no sounds that connect to controlled demolition.

I don't know if that is accurate...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64&feature=related[/ame]

And what the hell is this?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Mr. Jones]

You proved my point. 9 seconds, compared to 14 or 14.75. Near free fall speed velocity. Too close, for many people at least, to sweep under the rug and move on. Especially when viewed side by side with an actual confirmed controlled demolition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwFAnP7_RtY

That is one of my problems with building 7. because of the smoke we never see the southern side of the building where there were reports that up to 10 floors were 25% ripped out. And still there are no sounds that connect to controlled demolition.

this is in complete contradiction with the findings of NIST lil Ollie...when are you going too get that through your head ??

Yeah, it doesn't seem to add up to the maker of this video either..And the 9-11 commission report completely leaves WTC 7 out? No wonder people are skeptical.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii49BaRDp_A[/ame]

 

[DiveCon]

more bullshit from Mr Jones
did you notice in that first video the guy was "trapped on the 8th floor for an HOUR AND A HALF AFTER he heard the "explosion"?

and did you notice the building didn't start to collapse when the "explosive sound" was heard?

none of that supports a controlled demolition
and that third video, the first building was of greatly DIFFERENT construction and that part that was of similar construct DID collapse

you troofer morons are some of the biggest fucking morons on the internet

 

[SFC Ollie]

You proved my point. 9 seconds, compared to 14 or 14.75. Near free fall speed velocity. Too close, for many people at least, to sweep under the rug and move on. Especially when viewed side by side with an actual confirmed controlled demolition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwFAnP7_RtY

That is one of my problems with building 7. because of the smoke we never see the southern side of the building where there were reports that up to 10 floors were 25% ripped out. And still there are no sounds that connect to controlled demolition.

this is in complete contradiction with the findings of NIST lil Ollie...when are you going too get that through your head ??

Eots I have never claimed to agree 100% with the NIST or the 911 CR. But that doesn't mean I think there were any controlled demolitions either.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Why was building 7 not discussed in the final 911CR? Easy to answer if you read the report. It wasn't one of their goals to decide why the building fell.

So building 7 isn't relevant? Wrong. It is, and how and why it fell should have been one of their goals to explain, it was part of the 9-11 attack was it not? , another casualty of the attack. They mention the 2 towers, but not # 7.

"We have come together with a unity of purpose because our nation
demands it.

And still does.
No there was another day in history that had the same effect.

Bullshit. There were warnings.

To answer these questions, the Congress and the President created the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Public
Law 107-306, November 27, 2002).
Our mandate was sweeping.The law directed us to investigate “facts and
circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” including
those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy,
immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist
organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and
resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission."

This is were we have problems, as there are things relevant to the public, that they don't address.

Now what do I want answered? Nothing really, I disagree with some minor points made in the NIST reports. I believe the 911 CR could have dug a little deeper into who was behind some of the financing. (And they probably did but didn't publish the information) But they both have the major points covered.

Nothing really but you have a problem with who was behind the financing of the attack?
What causes you concern about who might have been behind the financing? And the minor flaw with NIST? I'm still looking at things and links would be helpful, thanks.

No where that I know of in the 911 CR do they claim any details about the technical reasons that WTC 1 and 2 came down. Of course I could have missed it.

Financing, just a gut feeling that some of the funds came from countries which we are allied with. So I can understand why they aren't talking about it. Though I believe they should.
Building 7? I believe that NIST is wrong that the physical damage done to the building by the tower collapse didn't cause the collapse of bldg 7. I believe that 25% of 10 floors is a big chunk of damage and probably did have something to do with the building falling. Also some of the times given for the collapses of different buildings were wrong in both reports. Which of course is what some of the truther stuff is based on.....

Like I said, the major points are correct.

 

[SFC Ollie]

.... And still there are no sounds that connect to controlled demolition.

I don't know if that is accurate...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64&feature=related[/ame]

And what the hell is this?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM&feature=related[/ame]

Ever heard and seen a controlled demolition? I thought not.

 

[Mr. Jones]

more bullshit from Mr Jones
did you notice in that first video the guy was "trapped on the 8th floor for an HOUR AND A HALF AFTER he heard the "explosion"?

and did you notice the building didn't start to collapse when the "explosive sound" was heard?

none of that supports a controlled demolition
and that third video, the first building was of greatly DIFFERENT construction and that part that was of similar construct DID collapse

you troofer morons are some of the biggest fucking morons on the internet

Hey divecont, it's not me saying this stuff, I am simply referring people to others who have, and it's on tape, and documented. So go and say bullshit to them, and I didn't start the alternative 9-11 theories, and I wasn't one of the people who started to question the inconsistencies in the official story, but I'm glad there were and brought it to the publics attention because I can see through the bull shit, and yours. You are a petty useless poster on here, and rather pathetic, you offer nothing useful here, and I am starting to believe that you crave attention in the form of responses from me, which is scary and sad. I think you have to be over 13 to post here? Does your mom and dad know your even on here?