See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Methodical Illusion: The 9/11 Con Begins to Crumble — Rebekah Roth (Flight Attendant)
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://sgtreport.com/2015/03/method ... egins-to-crumble-rebekah-roth/
Published: Mar 23, 2015
Author: Rebekah Roth
Post Date: 2015-03-23 10:33:47 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 18765
Comments: 557
Rebekah Roth has, in my opinion, blown the lid off of the lies surrounding the events on 9/11. Facts which are outlined in her recently released book, Methodical Illusion; a book, as of this writing, that is #1 on the Amazon Best Seller List for its category.--NorthWestLibertyNews Poster Comment: Roth’s research reveals ALL of the 911 cell phone calls from the passengers to their families and friends were actually made on the ground after the 4 planes landed at a remote military airfield and listen to what her research reveals about passenger 9B. This is a must listen. I agree with NorthWestLibertyNews's opinion that Rebekah has blown the lid off the 9/11 lies.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 423.
#2. To: christine (#0)
Uhhhhh...
Wtg, christine. Cyni may well have stroked out on this one.
One can hope! It seems that our super aviator either doesn't know or care that cell phones didn't work on commercial airliners. The last time I tried it was on a flight to christine's, NO SIGNAL ever, and the plane didn't crash, this was part of our discussion on that visit. It'll take more than facts or science to wake-up that old fool.
I have to say, I've left my phone on and seen other passengers with theirs on during takeoff even, and never an issue.
Long article, seems to confirm on the first page that calls near takeoff/landing work, but otherwise not so much. Keep in mind that we're also talking about 2001 technology here. While it may not seem that relevant, advances have been enormous.
Exactly! If you could bring a plane down with a cell phone, computer, Ipod, or radio would they really let you take them on the plane, or confiscate them like water bottles and shampoo. Cell phone call circa. 2001- 02 from cruising speed and altitude, I call bullshit.
Yup!
Excerpt: Rebekah Roth is not a whistle blower. She is a researcher. While very plausible, her hypothesis is just that. It is backed by no references, and she takes forever to get to it. Her hypothesis is that the planes were commandeered by remote control ("a flight termination system") and landed at nearby airports shortly after takeoff. NORAD and FAA computers were manipulated to show phony flight paths after the jets had actually landed. She calculates that the two jets that left Boston landed at Westover Air Base near Springfield MA. The passengers were told they were participating in a drill and asked to make scripted cell phone calls. One handler is even overheard saying "You did great!" on an answering machine recording. Then the passengers were murdered in cold blood. After wading through 300 pages of the author walking her dog on Puget Sound and a lame romantic plot, there are some worthwhile scraps. For example, apparently ten of the hijackers are still alive. Mohammed Atta's father said his son worked for Mossad and called him Sept. 12. There are no Arab names on the original passenger manifests; no security camera images; no passenger stubs. None of the above constitutes "solving 9-11." Roth has a notion that dummy planes were flown into the Trade Center towers. I don't believe any planes crashed into the WTC or the Pentagon. The filmmakers and "eye witnesses" were CIA plants and the planes were dubbed in later. She has nothing about the complicity of the US political elite, media, CIA or military on 9-11. Roth describes the villains as "the Octopus," Israel and its enablers, consisting of traitors in US government, media and society. Her heroine and a friend alert the President, "Joel Sherman" of an Israeli plot to set off nuclear bombs in US cities and sow deadly viruses. This will be blamed on Iran and result in war. - See more at: henrymakow.com/#sthash.q4rTIMvu.dpuf
WTC attacks were drones, ie. airliners or tankers converted to appear as passenger aircraft yet were remotely controlled. There were at least tens of thousands of witnesses to the WTC attacks; I doubt they were all "CIA assets". Not to mention every single news agency was covering the event as it unfolded, I doubt all of them were reporting on non-existant events being staged from a central control center in real time. I think those who insist the no-plane tale is absolute fact are in reality actively involved in the obvious coverup, sowing discord amongst the "truthers", and "proving" to others who actually believe the official government lies concerning 9/11 that all "truthers" are stark raving lunatics. The Pentagon attack was most likely a drone as well, being substantially smaller than an actual airliner, yet painted to appear as one from a distance.
Oh my lord...
What better way to get rid of pesky evidence at the WTC than totally demolishing the evidence by way of demolition, and removal of any lingering debris to China? If those buildings HADN'T "fallen down", there'd have been NO way for their plan to have worked.
That was the greedheads at work as they couldn't wait to rebuild...and there was nothing left to *demolish*...I looked down on that hole for three months before I couldn't take it any more...
BTW, the evidence was demolished due to the "collapse" of the towers. If the towers had NOT collapsed, there would have been intact remains of the aircraft in each tower. If they were not the reported aircraft, well, we most likely would be living under a different government by now since the perps would have been hauled off in handcuffs.
There were semi-intact remains of the aircraft outside of the towers. I saw some myself.
I'm just curious, were you NYFD or something? I'd think the site would be restricted after the crash/collapse. I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, I don't care what really happened that day one way or another anymore. I guess my interest in this clusterfuck of a thread stems from me being a pilot before "Texting Woman" destroyed my life.
No. I worked at a company whose NY headquarters are at 1 Liberty Plaza (165 Broadway) and I sat right at the Northwest corner of the building... I do have a dozen or so NYFD friends and one relative as well as a few NYPD who were on site all day. That's why I know the WTC7 BS is just that. They all saw the South face of the building and knew that it was going to collapse...
Pure BS. A weak south face does NOT cause a total collapse across all four corners of a building resulting in a free fall as if there's nothing in the way. That's why I question your truthfullness in what you "report". You could well have been in Idaho on the morning of 9/11 and simply CLAIM to have been there in NYC and have all these "friends" who KNEW it was "going to collapse".. Could you provide a link which reports ANY other building on earth falling at free fall speed due to damage on one side of the building?
The entire South Face was gone from the ground about half way up. And the collapse started on the east side of the building... That's why I question your truthfullness in what you "report". You could well have been in Idaho on the morning of 9/11 and simply CLAIM to have been there in NYC and have all these "friends" who KNEW it was "going to collapse".. The irony in your response here would overwhelm James Thurber... You weren't there. You spout nonsense. But what I say is questionable. So It Goes.
Uh huh. Have you ever heard of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City? The entire side of the building was destroyed by explosives, yet the building didn't budge. Fires have raged in high rise buildings for a day or more, yet even THOSE buildings didn't fall as if someone kicked the bottom out. So go ahead and find ANY example other than WTC 1, 2, or 7 where such a thing has ever happened. BTW, did you ever play with Legos when you were a kid? Were you ever able to get a stack of them to fall straight down if you took some off one side? No, it would be impossible. If it WERE to fall (after giving it a push), it'd tilt sideways, then break up as hit the ground sideways. You don't even need to study physics to know that, all you need is common sense.
The Murrah Building was constructed differently, IIRC, it was modular. But the more important reason is that most of the building did collapse...not just one side of it...
Apparently you have a problem with facts and reality. The Murrah building certainly did NOT collapse, it was still standing after the bombing.
What's all that debris on the ground? What's the big gouge on the left side from which debris is cascading in the direction of *gravity*?
What's the big gouge on the left side from which debris is cascading in the direction of *gravity*? The structure did not collapse into its own footprint did it. And while the explosion blew an entire slice of the building outwards, the building itself was still standing afterwards.
Do you see any major debris field outside of its *footprint*?
Uh, yep. And remember, the blast was INWARDS, yet falling debris did in act fall outwards. The point is, the structure did NOT collapse, any damage done was caused by explosives, and the buidling itself was still standing afterwards. You're claiming that since WTC7 had some damage on one side, the ENTIRE BUILDING decided to fall down into its own footprint at free fall speed. You are afflicted with "magical thinking" in that impossible events are possible, because to view it differently would destroy your inner security and worldview.
You're missing the part about the fire burning for hours uncontrolled because the building was unstable and expect to collapse. The spray-on fireproofing for structural steel elements was gypsum-based Monokote which had a two-hour fire rating for steel beams, girders and trusses, and a three-hour rating for columns.[6] Wikipedia The fire burned long past the rating period of the fire proofing. NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[7] Wikipedia Im sure I don't have to tell you that Im not a structural engineer, and I strongly suspect you are not an engineer either; that puts both of us in the position of having to rely on the expertise of others, not only for information, but also for analysis. I am still curious to know why your choose to believe the government blew up the WTC buildings.
And again, buildings don't collapse into their own footprint at free fall speeds unless they've been deliberately demolished with explosives. Go see what Architects and Engineers have to say about the matter, and stop spewing pseudoscience explanations you've picked up from government disinformation sites. And BTW, I AM an engineer.
Good thing that they didn't then.
Contrary to your claims, WTC 7 DID fall at free fall speed, and WTC 1 & 2 dropped at a rate VERY CLOSE to free fall speed. An actual total collapse would have taken MUCH more time. In reality, if a collapse were to have occured without the use of explosives, only the damaged upper section would have either slid off or toppled over, the remaining lower structure would have stayed intact.
No they didn't...
www.debunking911.com/freefall.ht m You're government propaganda doesn't work here.. From above video link;
...which has been debunked because it does not show the entire collapse...
What part of "if it is in FREEFALL DURING ANY PART OF THE COLLAPSE, THEN EXPLOSIVES WERE USED" do you fail to comprehend?
Where were the explosives planted?
WTC7 shows the characteristics of a standard type of controlled demolition where the explosives are placed on structural members of the lower floors to initiate the collapse. WTC 1 and 2 on the other hand were wired for effect, since the world had to believe that the planes hitting the towers and the associated fires were what caused the destruction of each tower. Thus, computer timed detonations had to occur at a precise rate starting from floors immediately below the aress of impact, and sequentially fire downwards to help the upper structure gain velocity at a rate where it'd pick up enough kinetic energy to demolish floors below.
If explosives were placed on lower floors, why was the penthouse on top of bldg 7 the first to go?
So you think the penthouse is where the crucial failure occured? LOL!!!!!!!!! The ENTIRE building is dropping DOWN in all videos, not just the top of the building.
That isn't what she said...she - correctly - pointed out that in a controlled demolition the top of the building would not begin to collapse before the bottom of it...
What if they wanted to ensure that whatever was in that penthouse was thoroughly destroyed? It'd be easy enough to place a few charges directly under it (or inside it). However, the fact remains, it wasn't simply that the roof collapsed, the ENTIRE building dropped straight into its own footprint.
Now you're obviously reaching.
Not as much as you, since the penthouse did not initiate the collapse of the entire structure from the bottom.
She never stated that.
She mentioned it to deflect attention from the collapse. So I addressed her comment.
What? It is clear from the video that the Penthouse was the first to go - are we not supposed to notice that and ask why?
Well it's an interesting observation that there were additional explosives at the top floor of the building, but the fact is, the ENTIRE structure dropped at free fall speed, not just the top floor or structure on top of it.
Chuckles...yea...in case the building fails to come down you could always claim...well...hmmm...what is it you could claim?
A) They were sure the building would come down. B) If every bit of planning failed, they could always claim it was due to "fire". C) They had people such as you on their "team" who would think of other nonsensical explanations when and if they were needed.
Can you point to any building that he been felled via controlled demolition that was done so by placing charges on the TOP floor? B) If every bit of planning failed, they could always claim it was due to "fire". That statement makes 0 sense... C) They had people such as you on their "team" who would think of other nonsensical explanations when and if they were needed. Since when is *gravity* nonsensical?
You and your GF are the ones diverting attention to the penthouse, and are making a big stink about it. It's a side topic, not the primary matter. It is YOU and your side kick who are claiming the penthouse collapse has something to do with the MAIN collapse which caused the ENTIRE structure to drop at free fall speed, not I.
The Penthouse is what spikes the controlled demolition nonsense.
In your mind perhaps. So since a penthouse on the top floor mysteriously collapses prior to the MAIN collapse initiated on the bottom floors, that means the rest of the structure must have been wiped out by red ants or something, eh?
Why is it that none of your videos show it? Because it adds seconds on to the collapse...that is why,,,
Show what? Are you trying to say there's no recording of the WTC7 collapse?
Thanks for proving my point about your videos failing to show the Penthouse collapse... FROH...
Thanks for admitting that you are TOTALLY ignoring the MAIN collapse of WTC7, and pretending that it never happened.
That flexible reality again. What, exactly, do you *think* I'm *pretending* never happened? Be specific please...
Do you shill for the 9/11 perps for fun, or for profit?
I lost over 50 friends and business associates that day, sir. Trust me when I tell you I am quite confident that I am blaming the correct people.
Well if you cared anything at all about those people you would be interested in finding out who was responsible, rather than helping them get away with murder.
I have found out.
Unlike the two of you, I actually have some important matters to attend to, so you can scream and kick all you want, but I think the facts speak for themselves for anyone who truly seeks the truth. Have fun.
The more that I *think* about this the more frightening it would have been for the Towers to have simply been blown up and collapsed on the spot...it would have killed tens of thousands more people and the shock would have been exponentially more than simply flying planes in at different times...
Ok, I'll bite on this last one. There would have been a massive criminal investigation if it had happened that way, and the population wouldn't have swallowed any claims that 19 arabs did it with box cutters. That and they couldn't have created the TSA, and would have to explain how terrorists planted bombs in the Pentagon exactly in the right location to blow up the office where investigators were looking into the missing 2.3 TRILLION dollars.
I doubt it...the shock would have been greater and the clamor for war would have been more so... Your scenario is simply too ludicrously incredulous to dwell anywhere near the Realm o' Actuality...
Your scenario is simply too ludicrously incredulous to dwell anywhere near the Realm o' Actuality... Your comments illustrate just how short sighted you are, and explain why you can't see any further than your nose in terms of uncovering actual truth. WHO would we have gone to war against IF they had admitted the towers were blown up? Blown up by WHO, and HOW, and WHY? Certainly there'd be an investigation, to think otherwise is ridiculous. Your simple scenario wouldn't have accomplished the attack on the Pentagon, which was worth 2.3 trillion dollars to those involved.
The success of any plot has always been rooted in the dynamic between simplicity and complexity. The more complex the plot, the less likely it will succeed. The hundreds, nearly thousands of people, who had to be involved to pull your 9/11 scenario off, is the easiest falsification of the plot.
You are ridiculous. Tell me (and others) that you really believe 19 A-Rabs with box cutters boarded commercial aircraft (without a single arab name on the manifests) took over the planes and flew them into the 9-11 targets (the Pentagon being hit an hour and a half after take-off), the buildings in New York being turned into dust and falling into their own footprint - and building 7 falling belatedly at 5:30 PM .. the others in the early morning hours. And what about those dancing Israeli Mossad agents ??? What about Condi Rice's statement that "we never thought the terrorists would use commercial aircraft as missiles when in fact there were around 15 drills taking place to prepare for exactly that scenario ??? Again - get the fuck out !
Do you believe that the government managed to plan and implement the false flag attack on 911, with all planning and coordination that entails, but left out a a little detail like remembering to place the names of the hijackers on passenger lists? The names of the 12 men with Arabic surnames were not on a passenger list made public yesterday by American Airlines and United Air Lines, whose planes were hijacked Tuesday morning. But The Boston Globe obtained the complete list, and law enforcement sources confirmed that they were focusing on up to a dozen of the Arabic men as they piece together how the two Boston flights were hijacked. One of the suspects, Mohamed Atta, 33, is a Saudi national who trained as an airline pilot. The other two, Waleed Alshehri and Marwan Alshehri, are believed to be brothers from the United Arab Emirates, and are also trained to fly heavy commercial aircraft like the ones that were commandeered and flown into the World Trade Center towers in New York. www.911myths.com/index.php/12_Sus pects_Eyed Apparently the lists you refer to were not manifests, but were incomplete lists of victims (some names initially withheld at the request of family members) sans suspects.
What I believe is that it would have been to their advantage for the names to have been released to the public. They tried to tell us what seats they were in before the alleged hijacking. Apparently the lists you refer to were not manifests, but were incomplete lists of victims (some names initially withheld at the request of family members) sans suspects. My sister sent me the passenger lists printed in the Indianapolis, Star Newspaper. There were so many anomalies that it really doesn't make logical sense to worry about one or two elements. What takes a whole lot of faith to believe is that 19 cave dwellers with box cutters were able to defeat the most elaborate defenses, the most expensive intelligence, in the most highly defended place (NYC and at the Pentagon) on earth. Now that takes a monumental leap of faith in my estimation. And, later it became public that while all of America had been grounded (no air flights) 100 or more Bin Ladens were flown out of the country. I don't usually get into this subject but jet fuel is basically kerosene and it isn't capable of reaching temperatures necessary to melt steel and even if it would have on that very special day that still doesn't account for the pulverized concrete that was as fine as baby powder. Many witnesses described explosions. I think the buildings were pre-loaded with bombs of some sort. The whodunnit exactly will probably never be known, but my money wouldn't be on 19 Arabs unless they were acting as contract agents for the CIA or MOSSAD.
Steel wasn't melted...and the *kerosene* was an accelerant to everything around it that could burn...
Kerosene (jet fuel) was spent within the first several minutes; paper, wood, and assorted office furniture doesn't burn hot enough to weaken steel. Bzzzt, sorry you lose, try again.
That statement stands at strong odds with anything remotely associated to reality let alone science.
Describe in detail how ANY part of what I wrote is inaccurate, rather than using the standard disinfo BS.
No, slim...you made the BS statement...now would be the time to back it up...and the *small* office fires nonsense isn't going to cut it...you had floors fully engulfed in flames...people don't jump from 100 story buldings because a couple of chairs are on fire...
Ok slick, I'll try to educate you; A) Because there's smoke and flames doesn't mean you have temperatures reaching anything close to that necessary to weaken steel. B) The fires were practically out prior to the collapse of both towers. One indication of such is that they were spewing BLACK smoke at that time, indicating a very low intensity smouldering fire which was starved of oxygen. C) There were people who survived who were ON the impacted floors, and those you see in the windows were unfortunate enough to be on the wrong side of the fire where they couldn't make it to the stairs. So do you get a bonus if you spin enough lies in a day's time?
What does thick black, sooty smoke mean? The fires were practically out prior to the collapse of both towers. One indication of such is that they were spewing BLACK smoke at that time, indicating a very low intensity smouldering fire which was starved of oxygen. Everything that you stated is BS. The fires were in no way nearly out. THICK black smoke is an indication of a fire that is both widespread and has plenty of fuel. There were people who survived who were ON the impacted floors, and those you see in the windows were unfortunate enough to be on the wrong side of the fire where they couldn't make it to the stairs What stairs? The stairs were gone on the *impacted* floors.
So what sort of bizzaro world do you live in war where fire is not hot enough to burn a human being, but hot enough to weaken steel to a point of structural failure?
#428. To: FormerLurker (#423)
In what bizzaro world do you live in wherein humans do not try to get away from fire that is capable of burning them...?
Your offering as evidence something that you admit does not exist. The nonsense that the *fires* were nearly *out* is based upon the reports of two fireman who reached floors well below the impact zone and reported that there were *small;* fires there. I know what my own eyes saw and what plenty of video evidence that ACTUALLY exists on Youtube and that's the fact that fires in both buildings were raging out of control.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: Cynicom, christine (#2)
Uhhhhh...
#10. To: Obnoxicated, christine (#3)
Wtg, christine. Cyni may well have stroked out on this one.
#11. To: Hmmmmm (#10)
#12. To: Katniss (#11)
how cell phones work in airliners -
#13. To: Lod (#12)
#14. To: Katniss, Lod (#13)
Keep in mind that we're also talking about 2001 technology here. While it may not seem that relevant, advances have been enormous.
#36. To: Hmmmmm (#14)
Exactly! If you could bring a plane down with a cell phone, computer, Ipod, or radio would they really let you take them on the plane, or confiscate them like water bottles and shampoo. Cell phone call circa. 2001- 02 from cruising speed and altitude, I call bullshit.
#37. To: Dr. Henry Makow's review of Roth's book (#36)
henrymakow.com/
#48. To: christine (#37)
Roth has a notion that dummy planes were flown into the Trade Center towers. I don't believe any planes crashed into the WTC or the Pentagon. The filmmakers and "eye witnesses" were CIA plants and the planes were dubbed in later.
#50. To: FormerLurker (#48)
WTC attacks were drones, ie. airliners or tankers converted to appear as passenger aircraft yet were remotely controlled.
#52. To: war (#50)
#53. To: FormerLurker (#52)
What better way to get rid of pesky evidence at the WTC than totally demolishing the evidence by way of demolition, and removal of any lingering debris to China?
#57. To: war (#53)
there was nothing left to *demolish*...
#59. To: FormerLurker (#57)
If the towers had NOT collapsed, there would have been intact remains of the aircraft in each tower.
#67. To: war (#59)
There were semi-intact remains of the aircraft outside of the towers. I saw some myself.
#69. To: Esso (#67)
#72. To: war (#69)
(Edited)
That's why I know the WTC7 BS is just that. They all saw the South face of the building and knew that it was going to collapse...
#98. To: FormerLurker (#72)
Pure BS. A weak south face does NOT cause a total collapse across all four corners of a building resulting in a free fall as if there's nothing in the way.
#114. To: war (#98)
The entire South Face was gone from the ground about half way up. And the collapse started on the east side of the building...
#149. To: FormerLurker (#114)
(Edited)
Uh huh. Have you ever heard of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City? The entire side of the building was destroyed by explosives, yet the building didn't budge.
#189. To: war (#149)
But the more important reason is that most of the building did collapse...not just one side of it...
#193. To: FormerLurker (#189)
#196. To: war (#193)
What's all that debris on the ground?
#198. To: FormerLurker (#196)
The structure did not collapse into its own footprint did it.
#200. To: war (#198)
Do you see any major debris field outside of its *footprint*?
#213. To: FormerLurker (#200)
You're claiming that since WTC7 had some damage on one side, the ENTIRE BUILDING decided to fall down into its own footprint at free fall speed.
#217. To: lucysmom (#213)
Im sure I don't have to tell you that Im not a structural engineer, and I strongly suspect you are not an engineer either; that puts both of us in the position of having to rely on the expertise of others, not only for information, but also for analysis. I am still curious to know why your choose to believe the government blew up the WTC buildings.
#219. To: FormerLurker (#217)
And again, buildings don't collapse into their own footprint at free fall speeds unless they've been deliberately demolished with explosives.
#221. To: war (#219)
Good thing that they didn't then.
#225. To: FormerLurker (#221)
Contrary to your claims, WTC 7 DID fall at free fall speed, and WTC 1 & 2 dropped at a rate VERY CLOSE to free fall speed.
#228. To: war (#225)
No they didn't...
[This is a reposting of this video which was taken down from the original site, originally posted in August 2008 just after the release of the final draft of the NIST WTC7 Report, prior to the final version which was altered to admit a 2.25 second period of freefall.] This video tracks the motion of the NW corner of Building 7 of the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001. The building was in freefall for a period of ~2.5 seconds. This means it was falling through itself for over 100 feet with zero resistance, an impossibility in any natural scenario. This period of freefall is solid evidence that explosives had to be used to bring the building down. In the final draft for public comment (August 2008) NIST denied that WTC7 fell at freefall. In the final report in Nov 2008 they reversed themselves and admitted freefall, but denied its obvious significance. ----- [The WTC7 series has elicited a number of questions from people unclear on the details of how I did the measurements, compared to how NIST did them and how the representatives of NIST described their measurements. I have therefore created a WTC7 Measurement FAQ page: http://www.911speakout.org/WTC7- Measurement-FAQ.pdf ... . I will also use this FAQ as a place of reference for other questions that arise as well.]
#232. To: FormerLurker (#228)
From above video link;
#235. To: war (#232)
...which has been debunked because it does not show the entire collapse...
#239. To: FormerLurker (#235)
What part of "if it is in FREEFALL DURING ANY PART OF THE COLLAPSE, THEN EXPLOSIVES WERE USED" do you fail to comprehend?
#241. To: lucysmom (#239)
#260. To: FormerLurker (#241)
WTC7 shows the characteristics of a standard type of controlled demolition where the explosives are placed on structural members of the lower floors to initiate the collapse.
#271. To: lucysmom (#260)
If explosives were placed on lower floors, why was the penthouse on top of bldg 7 the first to go?
#276. To: FormerLurker (#271)
So you think the penthouse is where the crucial failure occured?
#279. To: war (#276)
That isn't what she said...she - correctly - pointed out that in a controlled demolition the top of the building would not begin to collapse before the bottom of it...
#289. To: FormerLurker (#279)
What if they …
#292. To: lucysmom (#289)
Now you're obviously reaching.
#305. To: FormerLurker (#292)
Not as much as you, since the penthouse did not initiate the collapse of the entire structure from the bottom.
#308. To: war (#305)
She never stated that.
#315. To: FormerLurker (#308)
She mentioned it to deflect attention from the collapse. So I addressed her comment.
#317. To: lucysmom (#315)
It is clear from the video that the Penthouse was the first to go - are we not supposed to notice that and ask why?
#320. To: FormerLurker (#317)
Well it's an interesting observation that there were additional explosives at the top floor of the building
#323. To: war (#320)
Chuckles...yea...in case the building fails to come down you could always claim...well...hmmm...what is it you could claim?
#327. To: FormerLurker (#323)
A) They were sure the building would come down.
#335. To: war (#327)
Can you point to any building that he been felled via controlled demolition that was done so by placing charges on the TOP floor?
#338. To: FormerLurker (#335)
You and your GF are the ones diverting attention to the penthouse, and are making a big stink about it. It's a side topic, not the primary matter.
#340. To: war (#338)
The Penthouse is what spikes the controlled demolition nonsense.
#342. To: FormerLurker (#340)
In your mind perhaps...
#344. To: war (#342)
(Edited)
Why is it that none of your videos show it?
#351. To: FormerLurker (#344)
#354. To: war (#351)
#357. To: FormerLurker (#354)
Thanks for admitting that you are TOTALLY ignoring the MAIN collapse of WTC7, and pretending that it never happened.
#360. To: war (#357)
#363. To: FormerLurker (#360)
Do you shill for the 9/11 perps for fun, or for profit?
#365. To: war (#363)
#367. To: FormerLurker (#365)
Well if you cared anything at all about those people you would be interested in finding out who was responsible, rather than helping them get away with murder.
#370. To: war, lucysmom (#367)
#374. To: FormerLurker (#370)
#377. To: war (#374)
The more that I *think* about this the more frightening it would have been for the Towers to have simply been blown up and collapsed on the spot...it would have killed tens of thousands more people and the shock would have been exponentially more than simply flying planes in at different times...
#382. To: FormerLurker (#377)
There would have been a massive criminal investigation...
#384. To: war (#382)
I doubt it...the shock would have been greater and the clamor for war would have been more so...
#391. To: FormerLurker (#384)
Your comments illustrate just how short sighted you are...
#393. To: war (#391)
The hundreds, nearly thousands of people, who had to be involved to pull your 9/11 scenario off, is the easiest falsification of the plot.
#396. To: noone222 (#393)
You are ridiculous. Tell me (and others) that you really believe 19 A-Rabs with box cutters boarded commercial aircraft (without a single arab name on the manifests) took over the planes and flew them into the 9-11 targets (the Pentagon being hit an hour and a half after take-off), the buildings in New York being turned into dust and falling into their own footprint - and building 7 falling belatedly at 5:30 PM .. the others in the early morning hours.
#412. To: lucysmom (#396)
(Edited)
Do you believe that the government managed to plan and implement the false flag attack on 911, with all planning and coordination that entails, but left out a a little detail like remembering to place the names of the hijackers on passenger lists?
#414. To: noone222 (#412)
I don't usually get into this subject but jet fuel is basically kerosene and it isn't capable of reaching temperatures necessary to melt steel
#415. To: war, noone222 (#414)
Steel wasn't melted...and the *kerosene* was an accelerant to everything around it that could burn...
#416. To: FormerLurker (#415)
Kerosene (jet fuel) was spent within the first several minutes; paper, wood, and assorted office furniture doesn't burn hot enough to weaken steel.
#417. To: war (#416)
That statement stands at strong odds with anything remotely associated to reality let alone science.
#418. To: FormerLurker (#417)
Describe in detail how ANY part of what I wrote is inaccurate, rather than using the standard disinfo BS.
#419. To: war (#418)
#421. To: FormerLurker (#419)
Because there's smoke and flames doesn't mean you have temperatures reaching anything close to that necessary to weaken steel.
#423. To: war (#421)
Replies to Comment # 423. So what sort of bizzaro world do you live in war where fire is not hot enough to burn a human being, but hot enough to weaken steel to a point of structural failure?
#429. To: FormerLurker (#423)
As far as evidence of the fires being almost out, apparently YouTube has deleted a live interview on 9/11 with a Fox reporter and a fire official who stated the fires were almost out at the South Tower.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 423.