9-11 was an inside job

[alohamonkey]

I feel that the burden of proof is on you guys.  You are, after all, hanging out and posting on a "9-11 was an inside job" topic.  I've provided examples which you choose to ignore and call "meaningless."  Don't just tell me I'm wrong . . . PROVE IT!!!  You are very quick to condemn and criticize yet you don't provide facts.  I have yet to see any of you post anything substantial that contributes to this discussion.

[alohamonkey]

I've already shown you two buildings that suffered worse damage and didn't collapse - WTC 5 and WTC 6.

Neither of which was even vaguely similar to WTC 7, so your "example" is meaningless.

meaning what?  they didn't have rubble from the twin towers fall on them?  they didn't catch on fire and burn all day on 9/11?

or . . . they don't fit into your idea of what happened so you just choose to ignore them?

and . . . you ignored the 3rd example of the Windsor building that I posted

[kola]

monkey,

save your energy and time and put in someplace useful.

Kb and "the likes" are not worth the effort.

kola

[jaqeboy]

Yeah, and there is room on this forum for a thread called "9/11 was NOT an Inside Job", eh? Maybe they could post on the appropriate thread to kind of un-clutter this one.

[alohamonkey]

monkey,

save your energy and time and put in someplace useful.

Kb and "the likes" are not worth the effort.

kola

Yeah . . . you're right.  I just deleted a post where I sort of lost my shit.  It's not worth the effort.  It just makes me mad when someone criticizes research that you've done without providing any facts of their own. 

[kola]

Yeah, and there is room on this forum for a thread called "9/11 was NOT an Inside Job", eh? Maybe they could post on the appropriate thread to kind of un-clutter this one.

I agree Jaq..and you clearly have topnotch stats and research to back your claims. Nice work.

Kola

[alohamonkey]

Yeah, and there is room on this forum for a thread called "9/11 was NOT an Inside Job", eh? Maybe they could post on the appropriate thread to kind of un-clutter this one.

lol . . . I actually almost started one right before you posted this.  My first postings were going to be:

"The government never lies or covers anything up."

"I make claims about what happened without providing any facts."

"Steel buildings routinely collapse at free-fall speed - physics be damned!!"

[kola]

monkey,

save your energy and time and put in someplace useful.

Kb and "the likes" are not worth the effort.

kola

Yeah . . . you're right.  I just deleted a post where I sort of lost my shit.  It's not worth the effort.  It just makes me mad when someone criticizes research that you've done without providing any facts of their own. 

I use to "head-bang" with the pro-vaccine critics. Some I really enjoyed debating and discussing ideas and sharing research..and then there wre the others who really didn't want to discuss anything but only make me jump through their flaming hoops for their idiotic pleasures. I FINALLY learned to pick my battles wisely and it is now  quite easy to sniff these folks out early on and just avoid it.

This is ultimate wisdom, something I never knew as a younger man.

Kola

[KBCraig]

I've already shown you two buildings that suffered worse damage and didn't collapse - WTC 5 and WTC 6.

Neither of which was even vaguely similar to WTC 7, so your "example" is meaningless.

meaning what?  they didn't have rubble from the twin towers fall on them?  they didn't catch on fire and burn all day on 9/11?

Meaning that you're trying to compare two low, squat buildings (5 and 6 stories tall) to a 47 story skyscraper of a completely different design and method of construction. Not to mention that a big portion of WTC 5 did collapse from fire (even though it didn't have 20 stories above the fire, bearing weight down onto the fire-weakened section).

or . . . they don't fit into your idea of what happened so you just choose to ignore them?

Oh, the irony...

[kola]

..and wasn't it KB who refused to read The Commisiion Report???

LOL

[jaqeboy]

Thanks bro's for your clarity, strength and perseverance.

Yeah, a mind is like a parachute in that it only works when opened. The open and curious mind and concerned and involved man can and does look at all the facts and evidence - the building demolition evidence is just the first opening, the first crack in the Matrix. Working down in the trenches here of getting people to look at the demolition evidence is the entry-level.

Merrimack Valley 911 Truth hopes to provide the resources to our local folk here in a way that all will have an opportunity to have a look at the evidence. When we get all systems cranked up we'll have video showings every Thursday night somewhere in the MV area (that's the plan so far). Scheduled showings will be on the MV911T site. If someone who is curious about the events of September 11th knows of the opportunities and doesn't avail themselves of them, then that is their choice and it's regrettable, but for their own sake only. If someone chooses even to speculate on imagined info or personal theories, rather than on real evidence, and expresses that choice by sniping at or belittling others who do research, that is only an indication of their character and value as a cooperative community member.

We'll keep showing the entry level stuff interspersed with some of the more advanced findings, such as the Michael Ruppert stuff and even more recent material as it becomes available, so check it out when you have the chance.

[alohamonkey]

I've already shown you two buildings that suffered worse damage and didn't collapse - WTC 5 and WTC 6.

Neither of which was even vaguely similar to WTC 7, so your "example" is meaningless.

meaning what?  they didn't have rubble from the twin towers fall on them?  they didn't catch on fire and burn all day on 9/11?

Meaning that you're trying to compare two low, squat buildings (5 and 6 stories tall) to a 47 story skyscraper of a completely different design and method of construction. Not to mention that a big portion of WTC 5 did collapse from fire (even though it didn't have 20 stories above the fire, bearing weight down onto the fire-weakened section).

Once again . . . unsubstantiated facts:

WTC 5 - 9 stories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC_5

WTC 6 - 7 stories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC_6

I know these aren't big differences.  Just another example of you and others throwing out information without doing research.  I'll take what you say with a grain of salt from now on.  

[Russell Kanning]

I agree with you guys. This seems like a good thread to mention the stuff that shows that 9/11 was an inside job. I don't answer most questions either .... mostly because I don't have the answer. The government was in charge of the "protection" and the "investigation" and had all the info. They chose not to give out much info, so many of us assume they are holding stuff back since what we have doesn't add up.

[kola]

I agree with you guys. This seems like a good thread to mention the stuff that shows that 9/11 was an inside job. I don't answer most questions either .... mostly because I don't have the answer. The government was in charge of the "protection" and the "investigation" and had all the info. They chose not to give out much info, so many of us assume they are holding stuff back since what we have doesn't add up.

That is why I like to suggest to people that they read The Commsision Report. It is the "offical" investigation of 911.
Read it, comprehend it and then play detective and seek out the truth.

Some of the most important aspects of 911 were not even addressed in the reports.



Kola

[Russell Kanning]

bumpkins like me can't get through that big of a book .... especially from liars