Sibel Edmonds, war games, Pakistani ISI/General Ahmad, Mineta testimony, Able Danger, eat a dick.

Dumb ass.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

www.iamthewitness.com

keep on discussing stupid details about 9/11 while they are stealing your country " you ppl have no guts"

"Ernie"'s, back, everyone. Got a crush on Jon, that one does.

It's overwhelming because buildings don't collapse onto themselves at freefall speeds (impossible without demo) or collapse from fires--let alone 3 on the same day.

Even NIST admits the buildings fell at free fall speed. From NIST's own FAQ:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

Everyone agrees with this point. Even NIST’s 20 million dollar report admits this fact. This is overwhelming proof of demolition. See conservation of momentum. NIST can't ignore it because it's inconvenient to their theory.

the floors of the WTC were NOT designed to hold up hundreds of thousands of tons falling down on it.

According to twoofers, each floor should have momentality held up the mass as it came down - something it could not do. It was designed to hold a STATIC load - not one in motion.

amongst 9/11 truthers.

Flight 93 was shot down because what little evidence there is points to this being correct, eye witnesses plus wreckage scattered over 6 miles.

Pentagon nobody really knows because there is little to no evidence.
So all that can be done is make rational assumptions.
as in it is highly unlikely a 757 hit it, hole not big enough, unlikely to have been able to control a 757 so far just 20' off the ground traveling 500mph after hitting 5 light poles, and the damage is not consistent with what a 757 would do, etc..

WTC had explosives in the basement.
This was seen in video, eyewitnesses heard it, and at least one man was severely injured from that explosion and is alive today saying so.
Thermate was most likely used as testing of the steel shows signs of it, plus signs of it in video, and there is little else that could have super heated the steel in such a manner.
Explosives were not likely on "every floor" didn't need to be, however clear photographic evidence shows that indeed explosives were on MANY floors, they can be seen, heard, felt, and evidence of multi ton steel beams plus hundreds of body parts, tiny bone fragments hundreds of feet away across the street CONFIRM this FACT.

There are a tiny fraction of people like probably 1/4 of 1% that tout the utterly insane "No plane BS" these people are likely disinfo agents, plants or just outright nuts.

98% of 9/11 truthers are in very close agreement on the facts.
Some things are up in the air of course because so much is being hidden, covered up, lied about.

You obviously dont have a clue what you are talking about.

says that flight 93 was shot down. I guess he is a crazy conspiracy theorist too!

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112

Watch him say it here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0

“I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be.” Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense.

Sure you can deny that’s what he meant that but that’s like saying:

“I shot my cat—oops!!–I meant to say I was just petting my cat. Uh… I misspoke… oops almost went back to reality for a second… how embarrassing!”.

How could anyone make a “mistake” like that? On top of that he gets his press secretary to say he made a mistake a day or so later. I guess he didn’t notice he made a mistake when he said it. The pathological liars are starting to forget all of their lies.

if you think like the president—because he makes no sense at all.

To "shoot” is a pretty powerful verb. You don't say it by accident. Do you go around saying something was “shot” by accident? If you do, I would direct you to get some professional help; you must be losing your mind. Even more incriminating is the fact that he didn’t correct himself—he (or someone else) had his secretary correct him later. It is pretty obvious given the physical evidence and his statement, that he spoke the truth when he said it was shot down. There was almost nothing left of the plane. The debris was spread over for miles. Eyewitnesses heard a missile sound including a Vietnam veteran. The evidence all combines to reveal the true story.

Why cover it up? That is speculation. We need an investigation to find out why it was covered up. My guess is that Americans wouldn't be happy to know that their own military shot down a commercial plane. Why would they want to bring negative attention to the military? Wouldn't it be better if it was some "heroic" story where they fought back and "saved the day"? Only speculation--but it is logical speculation.

"Do you go around saying something was “shot” by accident? If you do, I would direct you to get some professional help; you must be losing your mind."

LOL!

I suspect an excellent reason why the shoot down of flight 93 was covered up was that if it was revealed that one plane was shot down--people would start to ask why others were not shot down.

In other words why was there a stand down from NORAD? I think this is a good motive to cover it up.

We can put it this way then if it makes you feel better.

There is ZERO possibility that what the Government says happened actually happened because it goes against the Laws of Physics.

There is your proof positive.

Now as far as proving controlled demolition considering all the evidence of the crime scene was removed "illegally" and only small bits and pieces remain of which no one is allowed to test then what we have to go by is the overwhelming circumstantial evidence and EVERY SINGLE SHRED of that agrees 100% with the Controlled Demolition Theory.

Nothing supports the Official Government Conspiracy Hypothesis.

I agree completely. You only have to watch to tape to see that towers aren't collapsing—they are blowing up from the top down. It is truly amazing how anyone (including myself) could not have questioned this when we first saw it. It brings up interesting psychological questions.

I fully support the findings of Steven Jones, but there must have been some pretty heavy duty explosives used to hammer the towers. I am very interested to see where the research goes on this subject. Those towers were after all, extremely durable and a testament to the architects. They were designed to survive extreme events.

Based on eyewitness testimony, there was basically nothing left of the towers excluding steel. Next to no office building materials survived. Almost no bodies were recovered.

Eventually, the explosives issue must be resolved. I’m not sure that Steven Jones has completely answered the question, but at least he has opened a window into fully answering it. I am convinced that thermate or other variants of it were used, but the question is what else was used.

What in the world is capable of leveling 110 story office buildings to dust? The official theory is a joke.

That's what I keep coming back to these days. You are absolutely correct that it should be possible to see that the towers are exploding -- and in fact it is impossible for me to see anything else in 2006. What was different in 2001-2005 for me? Why is it still impossible for many otherwise critically-thinking people to see that, regardless of the particular method employed, there was just obviously much, much more energy involved in what we saw than in an act of "falling down"?

Incidentally, Steven Jones did point out that thermate, as opposed to thermite, is explosive rather than merely incendiary. He also made it clear, though, that he is focused on his part of the puzzle and in pursuing it with the care and scientific rigor he has applied to other areas in his career as a scientist. My impression is that he would be open to hypotheses regarding what pulverized the buildings beyond the use of thermate, if they are supported by evidence. Judy Wood, however, needs WAY more evidence to back her claims before Steven Jones wastes his time thinking about space-based beam weapons, as he made clear (although his language managed to be more polite than mine.)

The official story is something much worse than a joke.

I'm a little skeptical about the Starship Enterprise being responsible for the collapse of the twin towers.

The last thing I want to hear is that the Klingons were involved.

then you're obviously a cover-up perp who wants to quash free speech here at 911blogger. We shouldn't be afraid of any ideas! We should have many threads about all of them, so that they are the first thing people see when they visit this site!

My own theory is that it was the Borg, however -- I just don't think the Klingons have the motivation.

I was just making a joke. I hope you didn't seriously think I'm a perp just because I mentioned Star Trek. Doesn't that sound a little too paranoid? (;

I'm open to any ideas as long as there is some evidence.

I just think that if there was a beam from outer space why would it not destroy the top of the tower first—not where the plane damage was approximated.

No, I was joking, too -- sometimes I like to riff on certain other posters' rhetorical style.