Was 9/11 an inside job?

[cyclonic]

The twoofer video "WTC7 this is an orange" is a con job, he has altered the sound of the first cd in it.

here is the philips building cd in oslo as it really sounds



now listen to it in anthony "oranges" lawson's video



this is called decieving people.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

The twoofer video "WTC7 this is an orange" is a con job, he has altered the sound of the first cd in it.

here is the philips building cd in oslo as it really sounds



now listen to it in anthony "oranges" lawson's video



this is called decieving people.

Richard Gage does the same thing, no surprise there!



Background here.

 

[cyclonic]

Richard Gage does the same thing, no surprise there!



Background here.

They belong in prison running errands for bubba.

 

[triforcharity]

I am curious, what do you suppose the firefighters in this photo are looking at?

**snicker**

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Hmmmm... Those poll numbers aren't looking so good for your position right now Relax (56 to 4 as I write this, I'll bet that I can name the four people who voted in your favor). Perhaps you should've included a Planet X option in there.

 

[Relax]

I am curious, what do you suppose the firefighters in this photo are looking at?
[qimg]http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y290/Zaitsev72/171106fireWTC.jpg[/qimg]

Probably not molten metal, unless they think bending over and sticking their hands in a pile of hot steel is a good idea.

You guys have convinced me of two things. It doesn't matter if it is an apple or an orange if you say it doesn't exist at all. It's kind of hard to fight such logic, it's like trying to prove to a creationism that evolution is real, they're just going to outright deny any valid evidence and so forth. All I have to say is search the mass amounts of films for yourself, try to find one that doesn't have dust puffs, sounds of explosions being set off in quick succession, or a video where they are not heard in the firefighter video inside the towers, they're hard to find. And I could as you do intentionally claim that they are 'fraudulent'.

 

[Triterope]

Hmmmm... Those poll numbers aren't looking so good for your position right now Relax (56 to 4 as I write this, I'll bet that I can name the four people who voted in your favor). Perhaps you should've included a Planet X option in there.

"The government planned 9/11" is the Planet X option.

 

[Sabrina]

Probably not molten metal, unless they think bending over and sticking their hands in a pile of hot steel is a good idea.

You guys have convinced me of two things. It doesn't matter if it is an apple or an orange if you say it doesn't exist at all. It's kind of hard to fight such logic, it's like trying to prove to a creationism that evolution is real, they're just going to outright deny any valid evidence and so forth. All I have to say is search the mass amounts of films for yourself, try to find one that doesn't have dust puffs, sounds of explosions being set off in quick succession, or a video where they are not heard in the firefighter video inside the towers, they're hard to find. And I could as you do intentionally claim that they are 'fraudulent'.

Pretty much every film that exists, except for the ones that have been doctored on the sly by truthers, don't have the sound of explosions being set off in quick succession, and every video of the collapse has the dust puffs.

Hard to find? Pffft, yeah, like it's hard to find a man who likes porn.

 

[twinstead]

Hard to find? Pffft, yeah, like it's hard to find a man who likes porn.

Hey. I resemble that remark

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Probably not molten metal, unless they think bending over and sticking their hands in a pile of hot steel is a good idea.

You guys have convinced me of two things. It doesn't matter if it is an apple or an orange if you say it doesn't exist at all. It's kind of hard to fight such logic, it's like trying to prove to a creationism that evolution is real, they're just going to outright deny any valid evidence and so forth. All I have to say is search the mass amounts of films for yourself, try to find one that doesn't have dust puffs, sounds of explosions being set off in quick succession, or a video where they are not heard in the firefighter video inside the towers, they're hard to find. And I could as you do intentionally claim that they are 'fraudulent'.

The reason it was asked is because one of the foremost truthers has said for years that it is in fact firemen looking into a hole that has molten steel in it. He gave entire "Lectures" featuring this photograph and that interpretation, even after it had been pointed out that, like you said, bending over it would not be a good idea. There is even video of this same scene where you can clearly see that the light source is in fact a small floodlight when they move it around. These are the types of people that you are trusting to tell you the truth. They are completely untrustworthy and have shown that to all of us time and time again.

We don't deny evidence. Everybody here has at one time or another made mistakes and owned up to them and then modified or discarded ideas that don't fit based upon those mea culpas, myself included. Truthers don't do that no matter how damning the evidence is to their point of view. That's primarily what makes them truthers, the inability to realize and admit when they are mistaken in their interpretations or have been misinformed by people who have no vested interest in telling you the truth but instead in selling you books and DVDs. These types of people are also called con men, hucksters and snake oil salesmen. And you're buying what they are selling while they laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Pretty much every film that exists, except for the ones that have been doctored on the sly by truthers, don't have the sound of explosions being set off in quick succession, and every video of the collapse has the dust puffs.

Hard to find? Pffft, yeah, like it's hard to find a man who likes porn.

Hehe. She said hard... and porn... Hehehe.

 

[Oystein]

...
You guys have convinced me of two things. It doesn't matter if it is an apple or an orange if you say it doesn't exist at all. It's kind of hard to fight such logic, it's like trying to prove to a creationism that evolution is real, they're just going to outright deny any valid evidence and so forth. All I have to say is search the mass amounts of films for yourself ...

Relax, did you realize how your "orange" video is fraudulent? How it presents you FALSE audio?

 

[Quad4_72]

Probably not molten metal, unless they think bending over and sticking their hands in a pile of hot steel is a good idea.

This is good. Most twoofers cannot even understand this much. That picture I showed you was used by Steven Jones in his initial paper as evidence that there was molten steel in the debris pile of ground zero. The picture was then used for years after by other twoofers as evidence of thermite. But, with just a little research and honesty, they could have discovered that it is simply a light being used by workers. In fact, Steven jones even altered the picture to make it appear more like molten metal. Observe:

You guys have convinced me of two things. It doesn't matter if it is an apple or an orange if you say it doesn't exist at all. It's kind of hard to fight such logic, it's like trying to prove to a creationism that evolution is real, they're just going to outright deny any valid evidence and so forth. All I have to say is search the mass amounts of films for yourself, try to find one that doesn't have dust puffs, sounds of explosions being set off in quick succession, or a video where they are not heard in the firefighter video inside the towers, they're hard to find. And I could as you do intentionally claim that they are 'fraudulent'.

I don't know why you keep referencing the apples and oranges nonsense. One thing you need to understand though, is that in this forum, there are posters such as myself that have researched 9/11 for many years, and have seen it all. Not to mention the experience in professional fields that many of the posters have here is undoubtedly well beyond yours. There are architects, structural engineers, physics phds, etc, etc. When you tell guys like me or many others here to "search the films for ourselves", well we have already done that. In fact, we have done that many times over.

So when you talk about "dust puffs" (Windows being blown out due to pressure build up from the falling upper portion of the towers), "Explosions in quick succession" (There were not any explosions in quick succession picked up by a single piece of audio equipment recording that day. Actual explosions that sever structural support columns can be heard for miles.), or any other nonsense, it has already been debunked for the past 9 years. Nothing that you have said is new, and we have seen it many times. It has been debunked, and there is a reason why after 10 years no one cares about your cause. It is made up and based on paranoia, not fact.

 

[Quad4_72]

The reason it was asked is because one of the foremost truthers has said for years that it is in fact firemen looking into a hole that has molten steel in it. He gave entire "Lectures" featuring this photograph and that interpretation, even after it had been pointed out that, like you said, bending over it would not be a good idea. There is even video of this same scene where you can clearly see that the light source is in fact a small floodlight when they move it around. These are the types of people that you are trusting to tell you the truth. They are completely untrustworthy and have shown that to all of us time and time again.

Exactly. I have presented the video to him to show how dishonest they are. Hopefully he accepts it.

 

[Relax]

Relax, did you realize how your "orange" video is fraudulent? How it presents you FALSE audio?

It's not that hard to find a video that has the sounds of a demolition taking place. One video discredited does not discredit the dozens of others, non-orange videos I've seen so I could learn what a demolition would sound like. Mind you the videos that I looked at were completely unrelated to the WTC issue, just regular documentation of a standard demolition. Though I sincerely wish that people would shut up when recording such videos, I don't want to hear people going "oooh wow!" in the background, I want to hear the demolition.

Having said that, I would like to say that the video you posted about discrediting the orange video due to the absence of one loud bang is null, sure it could be an audio edit, though other discrepancies like an echo or simply because the cameras are at different angles means they could've recorded different sounds. I see no reason why he would edit that audio though, as demolitions generally sound the same, so there would have been no need too.

 

[Quad4_72]

It's not that hard to find a video that has the sounds of a demolition taking place. One video discredited does not discredit the dozens of others, non-orange videos I've seen so I could learn what a demolition would sound like. Mind you the videos that I looked at were completely unrelated to the WTC issue, just regular documentation of a standard demolition. Though I sincerely wish that people would shut up when recording such videos, I don't want to hear people going "oooh wow!" in the background, I want to hear the demolition.

Have you ever been to a controlled demolition or heard any sorts of large explosives in person? I have been to controlled demolition and heard many many explosions in Iraq. In the controlled demolition, you could have been miles away and you could still hear the explosion. Every single camera picked up the explosions. There was no question about the explosions. No to bring down the largest buildings in New York, massive amount of explosives would be needed. EVERYONE would have heard these explosions and EVER SINGLE camera would have picked up the explosions. But again, this was not observed on 9/11, so why do you think there were explosives?

Having said that, I would like to say that the video you posted about discrediting the orange video due to the absence of one loud bang is null, sure it could be an audio edit, though other discrepancies like an echo or simply because the cameras are at different angles means they could've recorded different sounds. I see no reason why he would edit that audio though, as demolitions generally sound the same, so there would have been no need too.

If WTC was a demolition, it would not be necessary for twoofers to doctor the videos and add in sounds of explosions. Like I said, if you had ever been to a controlled demolition you would know that sounds would not have to be added to any footage. They are so loud that they would be heard for miles.

 

[Oystein]

It's not that hard to find a video that has the sounds of a demolition taking place. One video discredited does not discredit the dozens of others, non-orange videos I've seen so I could learn what a demolition would sound like.

So you now know how real demos sound? They go BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG, and only then do you see collapse, right?
Did you notice how, in real CDs, dust ejections are NOT the result of the explosions? Rather, they are the result of the collapse itself, and are also seen in non-explosive collapses. Right?

Did you notice in all of the videos of the thee major collapses in NY how they were NOT preceded by this BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG?

Mind you the videos that I looked at were completely unrelated to the WTC issue, just regular documentation of a standard demolition. Though I sincerely wish that people would shut up when recording such videos, I don't want to hear people going "oooh wow!" in the background, I want to hear the demolition.

Well, I understand your feelings, but these reactions underscore an important point: these BANGBANGBANGBANGs are not just heard. They are not merely loud. They are AWESOME! FRIGHTNING! INSANELY LOUD!
Nothing like that was heard in New York on 9/11. I hope you noticed that.

Having said that, I would like to say that the video you posted about discrediting the orange video due to the absence of one loud bang is null, sure it could be an audio edit, though other discrepancies like an echo or simply because the cameras are at different angles means they could've recorded different sounds. I see no reason why he would edit that audio though, as demolitions generally sound the same, so there would have been no need too.

But you just told us you have watched many real CDs. Surely you know that EVERY camera picks up those INSANELY loud BANG BANG BANG BANG BANGs?!?

 

[Relax]

If WTC was a demolition, it would not be necessary for twoofers to doctor the videos and add in sounds of explosions. Like I said, if you had ever been to a controlled demolition you would know that sounds would not have to be added to any footage. They are so loud that they would be heard for miles.

It's kind of hard to discern the sound when you have the sound of the building collapsing with it. If I have the time I'll post some more vids later about why I think the WTC were demolished, but right now I gotta get to the bank before it closes.

 

[Oystein]

It's kind of hard to discern the sound when you have the sound of the building collapsing with it.

No, not at all! For 2 easy and obvious reasons:
1. The explosions naturally occure BEFORE the sound of the building collapsing - the building would not start to collapse without a cause that precedes the collapse, now would it??
2. The explosions are EXTREMELY MUCH louder than the collapse.

All the videos of real explosive CD that you have listened to so far show you those two truisms. The Everglade Hotel sure shows that, and so does that Oslo building.

If I have the time I'll post some more vids later about why I think the WTC were demolished, but right now I gotta get to the bank before it closes.

Please try to find a video of a real explosive CD where you think it is hard to distinguish between sounds of explosives and sound of collapse!

 

[DGM]

I gotta get to the bank before it closes.

Your banks open on Labor Day?