Date:   7/9/2010 9:44:55 PM ( 14 y ago)
Hits:   7,841
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1650669

2 of 2 (100%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

"1. Flight 77 wreckage (from the landing gear) at the Pentagon. Conspiracy theorists used to argue that no plane ever hit the Pentagon, claiming that there was no visible debris at the site."

No, Conspiracy theorists didn't say a plane never hit the Pentagon. They said a 747 didn't hit it. So your first claim is wrong.
Now you want people to back up what they say, what the heck is that first picture? And even if it's part of a 747, where's the rest? Also we've all seen the 3ft diameter turbine that was supposed to have come from the 747, but there's one thing wrong with that, a person can walk into a 747's turbine. It's funny to how the little bit of evidence was carried off by hand and hidden under a tarp. Those guys must have been REALLY strong to carry off 9 ton turbines by hand! Plus how did they fit that 747 under that tarp? I'd like to be able to do that too when I bug out. So your first picture and claims are baseless.

"2. Debris from the Twin Towers falling onto WTC7. Many Conspiracy theorists still believe that fires and debris couldn't have reached WTC7 (the tall building lower-right) to inflict significant damage, claiming that WTC7 must have been subjected to a controlled demolition."

Once again you're wrong. I've never heard anybody say fire and debris couldn't have reached WTC7. Only you. Clearly the video's of WTC7 falling show small fires, just like the Twin Towers. the problem is, small fires do not equal total collapse of steel buildings. Raging fires don't either. So explain your claim about fire causing the collapse with some real evidence.

"3. WTC6 lies in ruins. Conspiracy theorists have also argued that WTC7 couldn't have been struck by debris since WTC6 - which lies between the twin towers and WTC7 - "wasn't that damaged". Note that the center has entirely collapsed. In spite of evidence like this, and reports from fire-fighters, who used instruments to measure the gradual movement and distortion of WTC7's structure over several hours up until its collapse, Truthers still prefer to believe that a controlled demolition occurred."

You're repeating here again, but lets play with it some more. You claim that pile of rubble is WTC7? Watch this video and see what it really looked like. And trust me there are several videos of it and they all look the same. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

Remember a pile of rubble can't fall. It's already a pile of rubble. Simple! Oh yeah you claim WTC6 was inbetween the towers and WTC7, yet WTC6 had way less damage in your picture. How's that?

"4 & 5. Fires rage in WTC5 and WTC6. Many conspiracy theorists refuse to accept that fire could have spread to WTC7, even though fires clearly raged across much of the WTC complex."

Wow guilt by association. Why don't you show the fire in WTC7? I know, because these pictures look better and WTC7's fires could hardly be seen. These buildings have much nicer fires and make your line more believable. :-) Funny thing is, Those two buildings had bigger fires than WTC7 and didn't fall. What's up with that? Kind of blows your fire theory out like a birthday candle huh? Oh yeah, and they reported it had fallen a half hour before it fell. Man those news people are good! Also if that fifth picture is supposed to be WTC7, notice it's not a pile of rubble like you said earlier? I know, shut up and believe what I say right?

"6. Plume from the Flight 93 Crash. As witnesses looked on, Mrs McClatchey took this shot from her porch. Ever since, conspiracy theorists have harassed and threatened her, even anonymously posting her phone number and photos of her home on blogs. They claim that the evidence must be faked, as it is inconsistent with their theory that a missile brought down the aircraft. (which would have resulted in fragments of the plane coming down over a wide area), and have subjected Mrs McClatchey to a torrent of abuse."

Ah, now you want to use a ball of smoke to prove something? Lets see what could cause a ball of smoke. Maybe a missle? Maybe a plane? Maybe dynamite? Maybe a truck on fire? Maybe Billy Joe and Billy Bob's still blowing up again? Do you subscribe to Popular Mechanics? This is the kind of debunking they do, since nothing can be proven by a picture of a ball of smoke.

"7. A seatbelt from the wreckage of Flight 93. Hundreds of volunteers spent days and weeks combing the area, collecting wreckage amounting to virtually the entire plane, now in the possession of the airline (with the exception of the black boxes which are held by air safety officials. Some conspiracy theorists believe that all of the local residents in the area are liars, along with all the airline workers, local police and emergency services, coronors, and air safety experts involved in the operation to recover the aircraft, and the analysis of flight data and materials recovered."

Now you're really getting somewhere, a burnt seatbelt. Wow. Was that on the side of a highway in California? Does that prove it's from Flight 97? Is it from a jet or a van? Does it prove Flight 97 crashed there or anywhere?
And people spent days and weeks looking for wreckage, when the first reporters said there was nothing there? As in no PEOPLE. Come on man, use some common sense. Remember they just about completely re-assembled a airliner that crashed in the bottom of the ocean, but all we get is a seatbelt here?
Even the lier Rumsfield said it was shot down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_ezRTkUs3A

Oh and "nothing larger than a phone book".

"8. Sagging floors in WTC2. As the heat in the towers increase, steel supports were weakened causing buckling, as evidenced by the sagging floor visible here. This weakening led to the structural failure of the building. Conspiracy theorists claim that the buildings should have survived these structural failures, and believe that thousands of explosive charges were rigged inside the building, with a control system to detonate them somehow surviving the impact and fires."

Once again no one said "the buildings should have survived these structual failures". Get it right please. You're batting 1000 here. The debate is WHAT caused the structual failures NOT if they should have survived them.
Answer this too. Why didn't the building collapse where the plane went into the building? There's a woman waving from the hole. She must be wonder woman to be able to stand all that intense heat and raging fire you speak of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3151MqXu52s

Also since you seem to have so much great knowledge on the subject, why was there so many people that reported explosions from the ground floor? Even when the firemen got there, the lobby windows were blown out. The police started evacuating people because of the explosions. Reporters reported them too. Uh, and this would explain how the explosives survived the "impact and fires" too. The way to take dwon any huge football player is knock their feet out from under them. It's called the law of gravity. I know, shut up and believe what we're told right?

"9. Workmen cutting beams in the wreckage. Conspiracy theorists are for some reason obsessed with the idea that thermite was used in 9/11, in spite of the fact that thermite is used for cutting and welding, and never in demolitions (indeed, it would be practically impossible to set it up). They cite neatly cut beams as evidence of thermite being used, but ignore the fact that beams were neatly cut up by workmen operating after the collapse."

Uh, "thermite is used for cutting and welding"? Let's get this straight. You can't weld with thermite. Why would they want to weld anything anyway? We're they trying to rebuild it?
Yes thermite can cut. Notice your picture shows a guy standing there NOT welding though? The picture doesn't even show what he's doing. And that's supposed to prove the welders were the source for all the thermite? He'd wouldn't be standing there if it was thermite because it's so toxic and hot. Plus he wouldn't be cutting a huge beam down while he's in a bucket right next to it. Geez. Talk about believing anything you hear.

"10. Debris out-paces the collapse of the tower. Many conspiracy theorists claim that the World Trade Center towers fell equal to (or ludicrously faster than) free-fall speeds. Many photos clearly show falling debris out-pacing the collapse of the building, proving that the structures fell at well below free-fall speeds."

Again what does your "evidence" show? The outer structure and smoke? Or maybe smoke and mirrors? Wether you belive they were brought down by explosions or the pancake effect, the outer shell will go first because it's the weakest and the outter most part. Maybe better evidence would be to measure the time it took for the WHOLE thing to fall? Also look at your second picture which show the outer shell being blown OUT, not falling down.

Bottom line, you need more than smoke and mirrors to convince the majority of Americans and especially here, that the official line of government BS is true. In case you didn't know, most Americans don't believe the official story. But I guess you'd have to actually read stuff and look at the evidence and do some research to know that.
 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.06 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=1650669