Federal grand jury to hear evidence that 9/11 was a controlled demolition

[Claudette]

LMAO I watched a show on just this about ten years ago.

They had architects, engineers and demolition experts and other professionals who totally debunked the bullshit your pushing.

Cement head.

All due respect because you're usually a fairly intelligent and informed poster here, but you are 180° wrong here. Nothing's been debunked - that's why there is an ongoing Grand Jury proceeding taking place this year.

Oh yes it has been debunked and more than once. The Grand Jury, if there is a Grand Jury, won't find anything.

Buckle up buttercup.

 

[Paulie]

Building 7 -

Steel reinforced column construction
No plane hit it (no jet fuel)
Sparse office fires and some damage to one bottom corner from tower collapse debris

Building collapses into itself in a matter of seconds. Please anyone who understands basic physics explain how this could have been possible. If there's damage to one bottom corner then even if it was physically possible for it to bring down an entire 47 story steel reinforced building, it would have toppled to the side where the damage was at the bottom corner.. the way a tree falls a certain direction after a notch is cut into it at a certain spot. I don't know what actually happened that day with the towers or the pentagon and I don't really care. The only thing I'm absolutely sure of is something isn't right about building 7 and I have a huge problem with the fact that no one has ever provided an explanation that makes any sense if we're to assume the laws of physics existed that day

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Building 7 -

Steel reinforced column construction
No plane hit it (no jet fuel)
Sparse office fires and some damage to one bottom corner from tower collapse debris

Building collapses into itself in a matter of seconds. Please anyone who understands basic physics explain how this could have been possible. If there's damage to one bottom corner then even if it was physically possible for it to bring down an entire 47 story steel reinforced building, it would have toppled to the side where the damage was at the bottom corner.. the way a tree falls a certain direction after a notch is cut into it at a certain spot. I don't know what actually happened that day with the towers or the pentagon and I don't really care. The only thing I'm absolutely sure of is something isn't right about building 7 and I have a huge problem with the fact that no one has ever provided an explanation that makes any sense if we're to assume the laws of physics existed that day

many USMB posters here obviously ditched junior high school science class,plus there were countless numbers of witnesses that heard explosives many of them being firefighters experienced in explosives who said they were insulted by the governments lies and conclusions they made calling the investigation rightly so half baked farce.

this short piece below here nails it.

Griffin shows that the charge that is regularly leveled against critics of the official theory--that they employ irrational and unscientific methods to defend conclusions based on faith--actually applies more fully to those who defend the official theory. they KNOW bld 7 is the crux of the 9/1 coverup they cant counter.or get around,they fail EVERYTIME.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

LMAO I watched a show on just this about ten years ago.

They had architects, engineers and demolition experts and other professionals who totally debunked the bullshit your pushing.

Cement head.

All due respect because you're usually a fairly intelligent and informed poster here, but you are 180° wrong here. Nothing's been debunked - that's why there is an ongoing Grand Jury proceeding taking place this year.

shhhh your making wayy too much sense for the Bush/Obama dupe to comprehend.

this book here has NEVER been debunked.

Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory

David Ray Griffin
Olive Branch Press, 2007 - History - 392 pages
1 Review
By virtue of his previous four books on the subject, David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement, which rejects the official conspiracy theory about 9/11. Although this movement was long ignored by the US government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon." It is not surprising, therefore, that the government and the corporately controlled media have shifted tactics. No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, they have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it. In the present book, David Ray Griffin shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked. Besides demonstrating the pitiful failure of Debunking 9/11 Myths (published by Popular Mechanics and endorsed by Senator John McCain), Griffin riddles recent reports and stories put out by the US Department of State, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the New York Times, Vanity Fair, and Time magazine. He also responds to criticisms of these efforts by left-leaning and Christian publications--which one might have expected to be supportive.Throughout these critiques, Griffin shows that the charge that is regularly leveled against critics of the official theory--that they employ irrational and unscientific methods to defend conclusions based on faith--actually applies more fully to those who defend the official theory. This book, by debunking the most prevalent attempts to refute the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement, shows that this movement's central claim--that 9/11 was an inside job--remains the only explanation that fits the facts.
More


Griffin matter of fact challenged our corrupt congress to debate with him in public and those cowards would not do so,they KNEW he would take them to the cleaners is why they would not do it.

 

[the other mike]

shhhh your making wayy too much sense for the Bush/Obama dupe to comprehend

I'm just wearing her down....she likes me.
(opposites attract they say )

 

[Paulie]

If you've ever actually looked into this whole thing with an open mind to try and find the answer that makes the most sense, good for you. But if all you've ever done is run with confirmation bias's, appeals to authority, cognitive dissonance, and any other psychological weakness that many people suffer from, why are you even posting in here?

 

[the other mike]

If you've ever actually looked into this whole thing with an open mind to try and find the answer that makes the most sense, good for you. But if all you've ever done is run with confirmation bias's, appeals to authority, cognitive dissonance, and any other psychological weakness that many people suffer from, why are you even posting in here?

If your condescending statement is aimed at me, have some balls and address me directly please.

 

[the other mike]

All three towers were controlled demolitions.
The planes did not bring down the towers.

 

[the other mike]

What's wrong little Polly, cat got your tongue ?
A turtle nipped your beak off ?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

If you've ever actually looked into this whole thing with an open mind to try and find the answer that makes the most sense, good for you. But if all you've ever done is run with confirmation bias's, appeals to authority, cognitive dissonance, and any other psychological weakness that many people suffer from, why are you even posting in here?

If you've ever actually looked into this whole thing with an open mind to try and find the answer that makes the most sense, good for you. But if all you've ever done is run with confirmation bias's, appeals to authority, cognitive dissonance, and any other psychological weakness that many people suffer from, why are you even posting in here?

If your condescending statement is aimed at me, have some balls and address me directly please.

What's wrong little Polly, cat got your tongue ?
A turtle nipped your beak off ?

It would SEEM he was addressing you but based on his first post here on this page,i think he MEANT to address claudette. thats the only thing that makes sense after his excellent post he made when he first came on.

 

[Paulie]

I wasn't talking to Angelo or anyone else specifically except for those who are only willing to accept the official story without even trying to come up with their own conclusion based on what makes the most sense. If you do that and you still side with the official story then I'm fine with that. I have no desire to try and convince anyone of anything other than building 7 being something that there is plenty of reason to investigate deeper. That's all I'm asking of anyone.

 

[Paulie]

All three towers were controlled demolitions.
The planes did not bring down the towers.

I tend to agree only because basic physics dictates that the towers shouldn't have collapsed in the manner they did. The problem with the towers is that it's impossible to convince many people because of the jet fuel aspect. You can make all the argument in the world to people against the official explanation of the towers collapse and many will just refuse to see it any differently because jet fuel, plane crashes, etc. But building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. As far as I'm concerned, without a plane hitting it, it's impossible for that building to have collapsed the way it did, absent strategically placed demolition charges. There's just zero possibility of it whatsoever and that's exactly why its been mostly ignored for 18 years now.

 

[the other mike]

All three towers were controlled demolitions.
The planes did not bring down the towers.

I tend to agree only because basic physics dictates that the towers shouldn't have collapsed in the manner they did. The problem with the towers is that it's impossible to convince many people because of the jet fuel aspect. You can make all the argument in the world to people against the official explanation of the towers collapse and many will just refuse to see it any differently because jet fuel, plane crashes, etc. But building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. As far as I'm concerned, without a plane hitting it, it's impossible for that building to have collapsed the way it did, absent strategically placed demolition charges. There's just zero possibility of it whatsoever and that's exactly why its been mostly ignored for 18 years now.

And why did they destroy all the evidence ?

 

[Paulie]

I'm also going to add this, and then I'm out on this discussion, I've had enough of it over the years..

If you (any of you) spend even 1 second more of your lives on the pentagon or shanksville you're wasting yours and everyone else's time. Shanksville has some elements that can definitely be thought provoking but still not nearly enough to be able to convince a critical mass of anything nefarious. People for the most part are not open minded and clearly most aren't critical thinkers. Stick with building 7. If you look at all the elements of building 7 and still come out supporting the official explanation that it collapsed the way it did due to collateral damage then you're either deathly afraid of the alternative or completely fucking retarded.

Good luck.

 

[Paulie]

All three towers were controlled demolitions.
The planes did not bring down the towers.

I tend to agree only because basic physics dictates that the towers shouldn't have collapsed in the manner they did. The problem with the towers is that it's impossible to convince many people because of the jet fuel aspect. You can make all the argument in the world to people against the official explanation of the towers collapse and many will just refuse to see it any differently because jet fuel, plane crashes, etc. But building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. As far as I'm concerned, without a plane hitting it, it's impossible for that building to have collapsed the way it did, absent strategically placed demolition charges. There's just zero possibility of it whatsoever and that's exactly why its been mostly ignored for 18 years now.

And why did they destroy all the evidence ?
View attachment 263309

Listen I know all of this stuff, I've been reading about this stuff since 2005. And I totally agree that it was a crime in and of itself how fast they shipped that rubble out of the country without even examining it. It was a crime scene and the biggest crime in world history and the potential evidence was whisked away immediately. I understand they were looking for survivors and all and that time was of the utmost importance but that's never stopped law enforcement from collecting their evidence any other time so it's not a good enough excuse. But it's still not enough to win people over. The open minded will see that and question things but most people won't. But there's absolutely nothing you can argue on the official side for building 7. There's still tons of people to this day that don't even know a third skyscraper collapsed that day

 

[the other mike]

Oh yes it has been debunked and more than once. The Grand Jury, if there is a Grand Jury, won't find anything.

Buckle up buttercup.

I make my buttercups from thermite dust.

 

[the other mike]

All three towers were controlled demolitions.
The planes did not bring down the towers.

I tend to agree only because basic physics dictates that the towers shouldn't have collapsed in the manner they did. The problem with the towers is that it's impossible to convince many people because of the jet fuel aspect. You can make all the argument in the world to people against the official explanation of the towers collapse and many will just refuse to see it any differently because jet fuel, plane crashes, etc. But building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. As far as I'm concerned, without a plane hitting it, it's impossible for that building to have collapsed the way it did, absent strategically placed demolition charges. There's just zero possibility of it whatsoever and that's exactly why its been mostly ignored for 18 years now.

And why did they destroy all the evidence ?
View attachment 263309

Listen I know all of this stuff, I've been reading about this stuff since 2005. And I totally agree that it was a crime in and of itself how fast they shipped that rubble out of the country without even examining it. It was a crime scene and the biggest crime in world history and the potential evidence was whisked away immediately. I understand they were looking for survivors and all and that time was of the utmost importance but that's never stopped law enforcement from collecting their evidence any other time so it's not a good enough excuse. But it's still not enough to win people over. The open minded will see that and question things but most people won't. But there's absolutely nothing you can argue on the official side for building 7. There's still tons of people to this day that don't even know a third skyscraper collapsed that day

It was a rhetorical question, not like I was asking you for an answer.

 

[Paulie]

All three towers were controlled demolitions.
The planes did not bring down the towers.

I tend to agree only because basic physics dictates that the towers shouldn't have collapsed in the manner they did. The problem with the towers is that it's impossible to convince many people because of the jet fuel aspect. You can make all the argument in the world to people against the official explanation of the towers collapse and many will just refuse to see it any differently because jet fuel, plane crashes, etc. But building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. As far as I'm concerned, without a plane hitting it, it's impossible for that building to have collapsed the way it did, absent strategically placed demolition charges. There's just zero possibility of it whatsoever and that's exactly why its been mostly ignored for 18 years now.

And why did they destroy all the evidence ?
View attachment 263309

When you look at all the 45 degree cuts on the steel columns with melted metal around them it sure does seem like that's the way it would have been rigged for collapse. I mean it's the only thing that makes sense for how the buildings came down without leaving any of the steel core standing. It was probably done at each floor and that's how the "pancake" collapse happened the way it did. But it's such a hard thing to convince people of. You have to be willing to accept opposite scenarios in your mind at the same time as the official scenario and that's the cognitive dissonance at work right there. It causes mental conflict and people psychologically avoid it for peace of mind.

 

[Paulie]

The only thing about it that still bothers me is the risk they took if this is really how they did it.. what if god forbid the demolition failed to completely do the job and there was still half a tower left standing full of clear unavoidable demolition evidence? They had to not only get that right once, but also a second time and then a third time on building 7. Just imagine how significant it would've been if that didn't turn out perfectly

 

[the other mike]

If you want to follow the 9/11 money trail start with Larry Silverstein.
Notorious for being at his WTC office every day, but stayed home on 9/11 for some reason.
Truly remarkable coincidence. Same with this guy.