Had there been demolition charges at the core, their ears would have indeed been bleeding. Thanks for pointing out more evidence that no controlled demolition took place.
You make many assumptions, while calling out others for doing the same. Do as I say, and not as I do, I suppose is the trademark.
Reports from near ground zero that morning indicate that the sound level was extremely intense outside the building, so what would you expect inside the building?
That has NO bearing on the fact that there were survivors in that stairwell And unless you can prove they were lying,stop digging yourself in a hole
The logic in the available data most strongly suggests that the mainstream media version of events is a STORY and nothing more. Your choice what you choose to accept.
Logic dictates that the mainstream version of events can only be a story, and certainly not the truth.
Truthers don't own logic, I'm afraid to tell you. Basic intelligence and a curious mind can easily find potholes in what they've fed us.
still havent dealt with the comprehension issues. re-read what he said and give it another try - - - Updated - - - ditto................
Brent Blanchard was at ground zero. It isn't third hand opinion. Its real life. Jim Hoffman? You mean the exploding ceiling tile guy? Wow. Talk about third rate. Do better.
Logic and basic intelligence is something I find the conspiracy theorists seriously lack. However, when it comes to vivid imagination, they have the market cornered.
The ridicule factor, once more. Logic and basic intelligence are pretty much the only tools one needs in the internet age. Information is widely available and verifiable. Half the public believes that the truth wasn't told about 9/11, and with good reason.
Quit setting yourself up for it, and ridicule will be no more. As for the rest of you post, it again is an exaggeration of what the truth really is. The most I have ever seen is 36% and that was at the peak of the truth movement back in 2004-2006. But then again to your credit, that is probably half according to truther math. You guys still insist despite all the real world data that the towers fell at free fall speed, when in reality it fell far slower. So good job. Not.
CNN did a thing this past Sunday night, part of which was a poll on various things the public doesn't believe. 9/11 was 40 some odd percent, JFK's assassination was right there with it, along with several other points. NIST admitted free fall for some portion of the building's collapses, too. Mathematics can easily ascertain whether or not the rest of the collapses were close to free fall or not. (Fact is they were very close). However, what I consider 'close' versus what you consider close are probably not the same, granted. What you call 'far slower', many call 'very close to' and, to you, the times were perfectly acceptable, and I don't expect you'll ever concede anything close so, the point is moot I suppose. Some things remain constant though, and I guess you stick with the easy ridicule route because it's void of particulars. Congratulations.
It would seem to me that evidence is what Official Storytellers want it to be. Ground Zero? You want ground zero witnesses? Sure thing: New York was also bombed: [video=youtube;HI1mxHmxjKw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI1mxHmxjKw[/video] Who said it was a second plane, it was a bomb: [video=youtube;bq1-BCeNcm0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1-BCeNcm0[/video] When we GOT DOWN TO THE LOBBY, THERE WAS A BIG EXPLOSION: [video=youtube;2W1HlV9O65w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W1HlV9O65w[/video] Wake UP!
When it comes to nonsequitur replies that are completely OFF TOPIC, the arrogance of Official Storytellers is unparalleled and unprecedented in scope and transparency. Why not address the undisputed facts that I have outlined in this thread? I have taken the 911 Commission Report, re-printed the relevant page/paragraph/sentence numbers in full plain view and used it to demonstrate the massive contradictions embedded within the so-called official story. I have done that in full plain view for everyone to see and rebut on this forum, yet NO ONE has dared to try. Why is that? I've even gotten one of your so-called "experts" on 911 to admit in full public view right here on this forum, that he does not rely on the official 911 Commission Report as his source of either summary or detailed facts of 911, which means that he uses facts not in evidence and still manages to post statements that were summarily corrected and found to be completely wrong - right here in this thread. So, when you find the time and the guts to take on the subject of Shanksville (THE Smoking Gun in all of 911), then feel free to do so. Otherwise, you are wasting my time with off-topic rhetoric that won't hold the attention of anyone seriously investing the facts of 911. Now, do you care to get to actual facts contained within this thread, or do you wish to pretend that you are doing as much? It is your call.
No doubt they would. They would also probably claim that such "ground zero" eyewitnesses were suffering a form of mass delusional projection and telepathically sent synchronized messages to each other before stepping in front of a camera and going on record. It is amazing how precious little homework the Official Storytelling Waterboys have done on their own - when evidence that contradicts the "official story" sits directly under their collective nose.
