Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
64. Lobby windows blown out
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:13 AM
Mar 2012

But windows closer to crash site intact.
Janitor who worked at the WTC for 20 years feels an explosion in the basement seconds before plane strikes tower. His testimony was taken out of the commission report.
ALL passengers DNA were ID'd, but plane itself just melted. No seats out of 4 planes 800 seats unaccounted for. Plane engines are 9 feet tall and made of Titanium. Not one of those around either.
Watching the first impact on WTC watch how fast smoke rises to the roof. It takes about minute for smoke 30 stories away from crash site to come billowing OUT of building.
ALL 4 planes crossed over heavy military bases, but none of the planes were caught.
And with EVERY crash the FAA reconstructs planes. All 4 planes were NEVER reconstructed. Not one of them. Flight 800 fell to the bottom floor of the Atlantic, and they retrieved it.
Pentagon only shows us a 10 second video of the crash there. The Pentagon must have hundreds if not thousands of camera's, but we only get that little bit of video. Why ask for more right. Just believe that our government spends billions of dollars on DEFENSE, and our DEFENSE building gets hit. LOL! Laughable at best. Oh and our Secretary of defense is helping victims ain't that sweet. The same man who announced just the day before that the Pentagon "misplaced" 2.3 TRILLION dollars.
If it were truly a terrorist attack, why didn't the Pentagon arm the Pentagon? They knew of other planes being hijacked. They had 35 minutes since the second tower was hit. All that defense money for what? They didn't even protect the White House. The military should have been set to shoot down whatever was in the sky. The Washington airport should have been shut down sooner. But go on and believe we spend all this time and money on defense, and not only did we get hit, it was our DEFENSE building. Which by the way groundbreaking ceremony for the Pentagon 09/11/41. Laughable.

But enough of facts. Everybody knows that fire can bring down steel and concrete at free fall speed. That is what they told us. To believe otherwise is to be laughed at. Even though they have NO facts. If there were facts to the governments story, there would have been a trial by now. The reason for no trial, is they need proof that the "terrorist" did 9/11, and they have NONE. Defense attorneys with witnesses in physics will prove the plane and fire didn't do what they told us. And we can't have that kind of talk going on can we. And just imagine if one of the "dead" terrorist testified. LOL! Which I'm sure would have happened. How would our government explain that. Or that Muslim's don't drink and have sex with prostitutes. It took Bush over 400 days to start the investigation. It's obvious, they didn't want to investigate 9/11.

I stopped at #1. zappaman Feb 2012 #1
actually it doesn't weaken steel Rosa Luxemburg Feb 2012 #30
Did I use the wrong word? zappaman Feb 2012 #31
Facts? These questions show that you've already been bamboozled William Seger Feb 2012 #2
Pancake theory leaves Politicalboi Mar 2012 #63
Nonsense will never change my mind, but actual evidence certainly would. William Seger Mar 2012 #67
I would really like to know what you believe to be the relevance of point 1 jberryhill Feb 2012 #3
Not completely cbrer Feb 2012 #4
Keep up the inquiry, please. earcandle Feb 2012 #5
"Conflicting data"? William Seger Feb 2012 #6
Indubitably (sp?) cbrer Feb 2012 #7
If you don't have the background to wade through the equations used... AZCat Feb 2012 #8
Not asking for defense cbrer Feb 2012 #10
If you could apply the laws of physics to 9/11 as you claim, you LARED Feb 2012 #13
Uh... Yes, you did. AZCat Feb 2012 #15
I stand corrected cbrer Feb 2012 #17
Have you read the NIST NCSTARs? AZCat Feb 2012 #22
If you "don't have the background to wade through the equations"... William Seger Feb 2012 #23
Those curves are typical... jberryhill Feb 2012 #9
Steel cbrer Feb 2012 #11
No one has told you to STFU jberryhill Feb 2012 #12
I need to start using the sarcasm emoticon cbrer Feb 2012 #14
"Lots of conflicting information by credible sources exist" jberryhill Feb 2012 #34
Google cbrer Feb 2012 #20
I misremembered the name jberryhill Feb 2012 #24
Thanks for the link cbrer Feb 2012 #25
This is pure nonsense.... jberryhill Feb 2012 #33
Maybe you can answer this for me then BobbyBoring Mar 2012 #54
And your explanation for that is....? jberryhill Mar 2012 #57
Here's one BobbyBoring Mar 2012 #58
Yes, David Chandler is a kook William Seger Feb 2012 #16
Potential yes, but... cbrer Feb 2012 #18
"... is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared." William Seger Feb 2012 #26
He states that it's in the video. cbrer Feb 2012 #27
I meant "shown" as in "demonstrated conclusively" William Seger Feb 2012 #28
Thanks cbrer Feb 2012 #29
Two weeks have passed and still no response, even LARED Mar 2012 #45
Weak assed effort cbrer Mar 2012 #46
Here is what I am seriously suggesting LARED Mar 2012 #50
An open mind cbrer Mar 2012 #53
Honestly is appreciated nt LARED Mar 2012 #62
I'll quibble with #4 OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #59
Quibble noted LARED Mar 2012 #61
seems fair, although personally I would avoid legal terms of art OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #70
nice post -- I'll just point out a recurring typo OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #32
And... cbrer Feb 2012 #19
For someone who claims to be curious, why have you not read any critical analysis of this POS? jberryhill Feb 2012 #35
Partial link- sorry cbrer Feb 2012 #21
"2. Timing does show some free fall throughout collapse of towers." jberryhill Feb 2012 #36
As I previously noted cbrer Feb 2012 #37
It doesn't require any particular expertise... jberryhill Feb 2012 #38
You were able cbrer Feb 2012 #39
No, you are not seeking information jberryhill Feb 2012 #40
here's the thing OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #41
Based on sources cited here cbrer Mar 2012 #47
"Please read these quotes and comment as to veracity." jberryhill Mar 2012 #51
My little personal story libodem Mar 2012 #42
I don't understand zappaman Mar 2012 #43
I know it is silly libodem Mar 2012 #48
"a bunch of nomads and a camel" jberryhill Mar 2012 #52
yes and no OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #60
Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BobbyBoring Mar 2012 #55
I would have got it a lot sooner zappaman Mar 2012 #56
Well... terrafirma Mar 2012 #44
So amazing...after all these years libodem Mar 2012 #49
Lobby windows blown out Politicalboi Mar 2012 #64
Situational evidence cbrer Mar 2012 #68
You can add two more indicators of an inside job.... Mr. Skeptik Mar 2012 #69
huh? OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #71
Sure, Mr. Skeptik Mar 2012 #73
Nonsense William Seger Mar 2012 #74
darn it, you type too fast! OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #76
I guess it depends... William Seger Mar 2012 #78
yeah, it's easy to end up making people's arguments for them OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #81
seriously? OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #75
lots of odd assertions here OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #72
Oh and Politicalboi Mar 2012 #65
Oh boy, such nonsense sgsmith Mar 2012 #66
This thread is a hoot!!! Broderick Mar 2012 #77
I was hoping cbrer Mar 2012 #79
Have you drank too much Broderick Mar 2012 #80
you're not familiar with "formulae"? OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #82
chime in about what? I'm confused OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #83
No reason cbrer Mar 2012 #84
yes, there is a lot to be learned (or that can be learned) OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #85
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»OK then. Just the facts. ...»Reply #64