Consider, with all due respect; and remember, I said with all due respect, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

 

Consider,one more question before I just assume your another nut with tinfoil on you head and a message board troll.

This is a screen shot of the http://www.ae911truth.org/ home page.



It says: Sounds of explosion at plane impact zone- a full second prior to the collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as media reporters).

Lets talk about this. They claim that 118 first responders and media reporters heard an explosion 1 second before the building came down.

Maybe you can explain to me how this is possible, I'm just a truck driver and I must not be as smart as you because I don't get it? Because it is totally impossible for that to happen OR those 118 first responders and media reporters experienced an anomaly or an explosion didn't bring the building down?

When you see an explosion from a distance, what is the your first major observation? You see the explosion before you hear it. So the fact that this explosion as described coming from the impact zone which was around the 78th floor (aprox 936 feet up). Now we know they were not standing directly below because they would have been killed by the debris falling from the building. They had to be observing from a distance and as we know sound does not travel at the speed of light. How is it possible for them to hear an explosion 1 second before the building fell (this is the explosion that they are claiming brought down the WTC) when in all actuality they would have seen the building fall then hear the explosions 2 seconds later.

So am just too stupid to understand this? or did those first responders see anomaly? or is this just more conspiracy theory's that doesn't make any sense?

MODERATORS: Please don't lock this thread
BOARD MEMBERS: Please don't post personal attacks. This thread needs to stay alive.

 

It should be locked out of respect. No matter how many times you post a rebuttal, Consider will come back with a "theroy". Just let it die. Give those that died the respect that they deserve.
As for personal attacks. While I haven't called him a nut case(yet).

 

Consider is a kind woman just trying to give you something to read and think about...

The personal attacks on her are inappropriate, if you don't like the thread, don't read it :idea: Check out the link under this screen shot... If that is building #7.... ? And for the Patriots... Patriotism, IS, questioning YOUR government...




http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-65.php

 

In what way would looking at the facts tarnish their memory?

Did you listen to that firefighter on the 78th floor?

I did.

 

Your post was long and had good points in it, but it primarily addressed the false idea that there were no planes.

there were planes.

It was coordinated.

As an aside, I'm a sister, not a bro... and not entirely a "sista" since I'm rather Polish white...

 

In what way is it disrespectful to the dead to look at the evidence at the WTC?

If the fact is that the WTC buildings were demolished by controlled demolition, then those who perished know that and they are hoping that you look at the A & E presentation because it shows things that are hard to explain away by planes hitting huge, HUGE buildings.

It is the fireman on the 78th floor who has my attention.

For years I had thought it was so foolish to send firemen in there if the buildings were that unsafe; I didn't see them as heroes, I saw them as good men who followed foolish orders...

But now I see it much differently. That firefighter on the 78th floor was well within what he knew his expertise to be.

He was a hero.

I am sure SURE SURE he wants this to be understood for what it was. I am sure he wants you to know what killed him.

 

Hi Rev.

I did a series of posts about a year ago, that were my best posts ever.
Take a look, and see if you see anyone you know...

http://www.health-boundaries-bite.co...ich-Board.html
.

 

I suppose quoting FACTS wouldn't tarnish their memory. But you're wrapped in tin-foil and spouting outlandish conspiracy theory and that DOES tarnish their memories. :x

Bottom line, I will agree with 99% of the rest of the world in that we don't know the WHOLE story. But those questions are along the lines of did we know about it in advance? Did we ignore warnings? Did we even help fund the attack? But under no circumstances can anyone factually refute the fact that the towers and the Pentagon were hit by planes and that no additional explosives were used. :roll:

You can march in the fool's parade all you want and latch on to any "theory" you would like. That doesn't change the fact that you are wrong and pursuing the WRONG cause. If you want to make a difference, jump on board the "where did we fail" bandwagon. That one, at least, has teeth.

 

Look, first of all, don't do the pretense thing about being less intelligent. I would guess you are at least as smart as me, and since you apparently don't have the brain injury that I do, my guess is that you are functionally smarter.


***

Your question is a good one. I mean, I think that's the crux of it.

There were, as far as I can tell from reading and watching the videos, more than one explosion... and the first was just before the building came down.

The fellow on the stock trading site said he felt what he feared was an explosion in the subway beneath the building he was in, which I think he said was across the street.

From what the experts say about controlled demolition, you have to break all the columns at one time, then as the one guy was quoted as saying, you have to "crack" it at the top to start it falling...

So that's what was done. All the columns were cut with the first big explosion - not one huge explosion, but an explosion at each of the 46 columns, 7 stories under ground. (Did you see the picture of the remote that can be used?)

Then the top of the building was "cracked" and it came down.

You have to admit that it came down perfectly, right?

If it had tumbled to one side or the other, it would have damaged other buildings and perhaps killed even more people.

I think the fact that they wanted to demolish it for years, but couldn't get a permit due to the asbestos in it, explains why so many who went there to help have been dying from what they breathed during those days.

And, that brings into question how the air could have been said to be okay to breath by the "authorities" at the time.

There was asbestos in the buildings, so it had to have been in the air. The authorities had to get the whole thing cleaned up, so it was easiest to say it was safe to do that... is how I see it.

If you look through those pages in the A & E presentation, you will see one which shows how much dust there was, enough dust to make the 6 inch curbs all but disappear under it.

If the explosion had been from the floors where the impact had taken place, then there would have been dust, for sure, but not the dust of the majority of the building.

They couldn't even find the bodies of most of the victims because they'd been blown to smithereens.

Why did the whole building explode like that?

That's what the architects and engineers are saying is impossible if anyone is trying to say that a plane could cause that.

And, obviously someone is trying to say that, that's the official story.