9/11 scientific proof that plane's didnt hit...WATCH THREE PARTS

sassy wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:The onus is on sassy to prove there was no appointment which you think would be very easy to check, yet nothing has turned up.
If you make a claim, then you have to back it
Rags does not have to do your work

Lordy, lordy you are as thick as two planks, even if there was an appointment he could have made it to cover himself, as he always had breakfast in the Tower with his daughter.  They BOTH made excuses that day.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

Lordy, lordy you are as thick as two planks, even if there was an appointment he could have made it to cover himself, as he always had breakfast in the Tower with his daughter.  They BOTH made excuses that day.

You could have just made that up.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Lol I asked for Zack to present the experts that have peer reviwed these so called papers that refute the 9/11 findings and he cannot present a single one from the same field the work has been presented off.

So again for your education, present your experts, because you have just proven how uneducated you are

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Oh dear epic fail from Zack the other poster driven by antisemitismn

Where is the evidence he did not have an appointment

Notice both the regressive left and the Islamist both seek to yet again deligitmize someone ethnicially Jewish.

What does that tell you about them both?

What do they both hope to gain, by inventing a lie to blame Israel and not Al-Qaeda

Richard The Lionheart wrote:So after asking zack so many times, he cannot produce experts within the same field providing their reviews and that they agree with the findings, thus making it a peer review.

Not sure how many more times he is going top weasel out of

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You could have just made that up.

How about hearing it from the horses mouth:



https://youtu.be/84doiQHJ5rQ

Clear admission that he always had breakfast with his daughter except on 9/11.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

How about hearing it from the horses mouth:



https://youtu.be/84doiQHJ5rQ

Clear admission that he always had breakfast with his daughter except on 9/11.

Thank you for at least attempting to show some evidence. However, he didn't mention his daughter in that clip, let alone say that he always had breakfast with his daughter except on 9/11. Someone else in that video claimed that, but he didn't.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thank you for at least attempting to show some evidence. However, he didn't mention his daughter in that clip, let alone say that he always had breakfast with his daughter except on 9/11. Someone else in that video claimed that, but he didn't.

“After a last-minute breakdown in the front-running bid, Mr. Silverstein’s team won by a hair. His son, Roger, and his daughter, Lisa, were working for him in temporary offices on the 88th floor of the W.T.C. north tower. Regular meetings with tenants in the weeks immediately following their July 26, 2001, takeover of the building were held each morning at Windows on the World. But on Sept. 11, Roger and Lisa Silverstein were running late. Meanwhile, Mr. Silverstein’s wife of 46 years had laid down the law: The developer could not cancel an appointment with his dermatologist, even to meet with tenants at his most important property. If the attack had happened just a little later, Mr. Silverstein’s children would likely have been trapped at Windows. As it was, Silverstein Properties lost four employees in the attack, two of whom had just recently been hired.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20081012085011/http://www.observer.com/node/47252

Raggamuffin wrote:Let's not forget that the first plane hit the WTC at about 8.46 am. That's pretty early really - I should think a lot of people hadn't arrived for work at that time.

sassy wrote:Now Rags, what evidence do you have that he rung her lol.  Amazing how all three survived, just amazing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:Now Rags, what evidence do you have that he rung her lol.  Amazing how all three survived, just amazing.

I didn't claim that he did ring her. It's common sense isn't it? If you were expecting to meet someone for breakfast and you had to go somewhere else, wouldn't you let them know?

None of this is proof of anything anyway. Where is the evidence that his daughter was always in the WTC before 8.46 am every day? Where is the evidence that any of them knew there was going to be an attack?

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Let's not forget that the first plane hit the WTC at about 8.46 am. That's pretty early really - I should think a lot of people hadn't arrived for work at that time.

You are joshing, do you know what time they start work in New York?   Why do you think it was a 'breakfast' meeting?

In the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, the hours between 9 am and 5 pm (the traditional "9 to 5") are typically considered to be standard business hours, although in the United States this varies by region due to local tradition and the need to conduct business by telephone with people in other time zones. For instance, business in Chicago is often conducted between 8 am and 4:30 pm, while in New York City, business hours tend to be later—for instance, from 10 am to 6 pm. On Saturdays businesses are usually open from 8 or 9 am to noon or 1 pm.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't claim that he did ring her. It's common sense isn't it? If you were expecting to meet someone for breakfast and you had to go somewhere else, wouldn't you let them know?

None of this is proof of anything anyway. Where is the evidence that his daughter was always in the WTC before 8.46 am every day? Where is the evidence that any of them knew there was going to be an attack?

Ah, so now you can claim things without back up lol

Yep, also amazing the man that owned the Tower used to lunch there, with his daughter, every day without fail. On that day he told his daughter to stay away and he didn't go in either.

Raggamuffin wrote:This is the post you made Sassy. You see how you presented it as a factual statement?

Yep, also amazing the man that owned the Tower used to lunch there, with his daughter, every day without fail.  On that day he told his daughter to stay away and he didn't go in either.

First of all, what is the relevance of him having lunch there, with or without his daughter? I don't know anyone who has lunch before 8.46 am.

Secondly, where is your evidence that he told his daughter to stay away? When did he allegedly tell her that?

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This is the post you made Sassy. You see how you presented it as a factual statement?



First of all, what is the relevance of him having lunch there, with or without his daughter? I don't know anyone who has lunch before 8.46 am.

Secondly, where is your evidence that he told his daughter to stay away? When did he allegedly tell her that?

OMG, said it was breakfast not lunch.  And they met for it everyday, as people who worked there have testified, to hold breakfast work meetings with tenants and business associates and to be seen, in The Windows on the World Restaurant.  On that day, he and his family didn't arrive.

sassy wrote:I didn't post 'in a sloppy manner', I was posting to people who I had already discussed things with and who know about Silverstein.

Now, I suggest you do your own research.

sassy wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I watched all 3 Eddie.

Yes, there are many holes in the official version of 9/11 and more people like you are waking up to the truth that this vile attack has nothing to do with Islam.

But of course, you're being mocked in this forum and even trying to shut you up, lest you be seen as some sort of crazy person.

In fact, the Americans and the elite (like Rothschild's - see Niall Ferguson's work on this) used Islam to create a clash of civilisations in order to exert its power.

Many people forget the blueprint published in 2000 (before 11/09/2001) - in fact a few months befor GW Bush is elected.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

2 things to notice about this report -

1. The people who wrote the report played a key role in advising the administration of GW Bush, esp during his first term

2. Page 51 of report: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Let's also not forget that Robin Cook was also murderd for trying to reveal that bin Laden, Khalid SM were CIA agents and Al Qeada was an American creation. "Al Qaeda Mamalut" translates as "The Data Base" of mujahideen fighting for the US against the Russians in Afghanistan.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

I've also been trying to find Trevor McDonalds interview with Bush in 2000 (a year before 9/11) where he admits he has a strategy to convince the American people to attach Iraq - unfortunately you won't find this interview online anymore. It's been conveniently removed.

Lastly, analyse those who died (supposedly) on Flight 11 - and more importantly who "conviniently missed the flight". Those who missed the flight have been associated with certain groups of "elites".

Yep, also amazing the man that owned the Tower used to lunch there, with his daughter, every day without fail.  On that day he told his daughter to stay away and he didn't go in either.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:I didn't post 'in a sloppy manner', I was posting to people who I had already discussed things with and who know about Silverstein.

Now, I suggest you do your own research.

I suggest you research the difference between lunch and breakfast.

I've done research on your claim, and there is nothing to substantiate it, so I consider that it can be dismissed as nonsense.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Well its evident why at least two here believe this Eilzel, which is very evident as they wish to place blame on another nation.

As to Eddie, I just think she likes conspiracies.

I mnean sorry but to claim a person when he says pull, means to pull a building down, based after the event, not takling in context he clearly mean pull everyone out, is as about as idiotic as it g

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:

Yep, also amazing the man that owned the Tower used to lunch there, with his daughter, every day without fail.  On that day he told his daughter to stay away and he didn't go in either.

Do you mean Lucky Larry Silverstein?


@Zack, what makes me laugh is the fact that no one has disputed the scientists theory and no one has mentioned the "ball" and no one has mentioned that in the video of the first attack - you see the explosion but no plane and no one has explained that a plane flying that low (never mind that pilots and experts had said it was pretty much impossible!) wasn't heard by ANYONE on the street yet it clearly shows people on the street and the second "plane" hitting and no one has explained away the experts accounts of the planes clearly not looking like planes at all and no one has mentioned  that there was a big crater where the fourth "plane" hit yet no plane was seen (and the only "evidence" of a plane being there was tiny fragments but no bodies??!)

Oh the list goes on.

I have put up three videos and the robots have said "Rubbish!"
Now they can explain how the first scientist was wrong and they can explain what the "ball" was and all that other unanswered questions that appear on the videos.

Would love to hear it.
But I won't of course.

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:

Yep, also amazing the man that owned the Tower used to lunch there, with his daughter, every day without fail.  On that day he told his daughter to stay away and he didn't go in either.

Do you mean Lucky Larry Silverstein?


@Zack, what makes me laugh is the fact that no one has disputed the scientists theory and no one has mentioned the "ball" and no one has mentioned that in the video of the first attack - you see the explosion but no plane and no one has explained that a plane flying that low (never mind that pilots and experts had said it was pretty much impossible!) wasn't heard by ANYONE on the street yet it clearly shows people on the street and the second "plane" hitting and no one has explained away the experts accounts of the planes clearly not looking like planes at all and no one has mentioned  that there was a big crater where the fourth "plane" hit yet no plane was seen (and the only "evidence" of a plane being there was tiny fragments but no bodies??!)

Oh the list goes on.

I have put up three videos and the robots have said "Rubbish!"
Now they can explain how the first scientist was wrong and they can explain what the "ball" was and all that other unanswered questions that appear on the videos.

Would love to hear it.
But I won't of course.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I suggest you research the difference between lunch and breakfast.

I've done research on your claim, and there is nothing to substantiate it, so I consider that it can be dismissed as nonsense.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t12842-meet-lucky-larry


I think sassy is referring to this

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Well its evident why at least two here believe this Eilzel, which is very evident as they wish to place blame on another nation.

As to Eddie, I just think she likes conspiracies.

I mnean sorry but to claim a person when he says pull, means to pull a building down, based after the event, not takling in context he clearly mean pull everyone out, is as about as idiotic as it g

HA HA HA HA HA!

Please provide a single example of where the term "pull down a building" has been used in the context of evacuating a building?

Your arguments are now becoming more and more moronic.

Here's a full legitimate examples of the phrase:

down
v.
1. To bring something down from a higher level to a lower one: Could you pull that book down from the shelf for me? After the concert, we went around town and pulled down all the advertisements.
2. To demolish or destroy some structure; raze something: They're pulling down the movie theater and putting in a shopping mall. When someone got injured on the old water tower, the city council decided to pull it down.
3. To reduce something to a lower amount: Lower wages have not pulled down the price of consumer goods, and many people can no longer afford the bare necessities. Airline ticket prices have risen over the past year, but lower fuel costs should soon pull them down.
4. To depress someone, as in spirits or health: This fight with his parents is really pulling him down.
5. To draw some amount of money as wages; earn something: She pulls down a hefty salary as a lawyer.

Maybe you meant "pull down all the people from the building, destroy their structure, lower their wages, which will depress them".

That's the problem with you and Rags, you're given evidence from the source but yet still question the authenticity.  It is people like you who are closed minded fools.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:

Do you mean Lucky Larry Silverstein?


@Zack, what makes me laugh is the fact that no one has disputed the scientists theory and no one has mentioned the "ball" and no one has mentioned that in the video of the first attack - you see the explosion but no plane and no one has explained that a plane flying that low (never mind that pilots and experts had said it was pretty much impossible!) wasn't heard by ANYONE on the street yet it clearly shows people on the street and the second "plane" hitting and no one has explained away the experts accounts of the planes clearly not looking like planes at all and no one has mentioned  that there was a big crater where the fourth "plane" hit yet no plane was seen (and the only "evidence" of a plane being there was tiny fragments but no bodies??!)

Oh the list goes on.

I have put up three videos and the robots have said "Rubbish!"
Now they can explain how the first scientist was wrong and they can explain what the "ball" was and all that other unanswered questions that appear on the videos.

Would love to hear it.
But I won't of course.

Of course they haven't seen it.

They don't even realise how much information we will never know, due to secrecy.

What you will get is a lot of lazy name calling. These people are the useful idiots who allow the elite to get away with mass murder for the sake of global power and riches.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:

Yep, also amazing the man that owned the Tower used to lunch there, with his daughter, every day without fail.  On that day he told his daughter to stay away and he didn't go in either.

Do you mean Lucky Larry Silverstein?


@Zack, what makes me laugh is the fact that no one has disputed the scientists theory and no one has mentioned the "ball" and no one has mentioned that in the video of the first attack - you see the explosion but no plane and no one has explained that a plane flying that low (never mind that pilots and experts had said it was pretty much impossible!) wasn't heard by ANYONE on the street yet it clearly shows people on the street and the second "plane" hitting and no one has explained away the experts accounts of the planes clearly not looking like planes at all and no one has mentioned  that there was a big crater where the fourth "plane" hit yet no plane was seen (and the only "evidence" of a plane being there was tiny fragments but no bodies??!)

Oh the list goes on.

I have put up three videos and the robots have said "Rubbish!"
Now they can explain how the first scientist was wrong and they can explain what the "ball" was and all that other unanswered questions that appear on the videos.

Would love to hear it.
But I won't of course.

I'm in the process of watching the first video featuring the "ball", but it's quite hard going. In order to investigate the claims fully, one would need to refer to other videos and reporting of the moment of the impact - that can't be done in five minutes.

If someone posted three videos of the official version which added up to an hour, would you bother to watch it or would you just say that people shouldn't believe what they see or read?

I do recall some people saying that they heard the second plane anyway.

Eilzel wrote:Eds, so some nut in a video claims there is a ball in one piece of footage which he asserts is a plane in doctored footage. And this catastrophic giveaway is apparently given by one of the news agencies apparently in on the lie. Come on, even less wacko truthers say it was a plane (an unmarked one, but still a plane).

The ball theory, along with rest, is bullshit.

You all just lap it up like the hungry scooby doo gang you are

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm in the process of watching the first video featuring the "ball", but it's quite hard going. In order to investigate the claims fully, one would need to refer to other videos and reporting of the moment of the impact - that can't be done in five minutes.

If someone posted three videos of the official version which added up to an hour, would you bother to watch it or would you just say that people shouldn't believe what they see or read?

I do recall some people saying that they heard the second plane anyway.

Yes but intend to believe what I see with my own eyes. No one looks up until they hear the impact of the building being hit.
I find that more odd than anything else I've seen or read; you know a "plane" has hit a building yet the loudest of loud noises of a plane flying low, above you head, and you don't even flinch or glance up?
The second video gives you the details of the noise that would've made.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:

Yep, also amazing the man that owned the Tower used to lunch there, with his daughter, every day without fail.  On that day he told his daughter to stay away and he didn't go in either.

Do you mean Lucky Larry Silverstein?


@Zack, what makes me laugh is the fact that no one has disputed the scientists theory and no one has mentioned the "ball" and no one has mentioned that in the video of the first attack - you see the explosion but no plane and no one has explained that a plane flying that low (never mind that pilots and experts had said it was pretty much impossible!) wasn't heard by ANYONE on the street yet it clearly shows people on the street and the second "plane" hitting and no one has explained away the experts accounts of the planes clearly not looking like planes at all and no one has mentioned  that there was a big crater where the fourth "plane" hit yet no plane was seen (and the only "evidence" of a plane being there was tiny fragments but no bodies??!)

Oh the list goes on.

I have put up three videos and the robots have said "Rubbish!"
Now they can explain how the first scientist was wrong and they can explain what the "ball" was and all that other unanswered questions that appear on the videos.

Would love to hear it.
But I won't of course.

Of course they haven't seen it.

They don't even realise how much information we will never know, due to secrecy.

What you will get is a lot of lazy name calling. These people are the useful idiots who allow the elite to get away with mass murder for the sake of global power and riches.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:So zack has never hear people see

Pull that person from the burning building

Pull that person away from the car.

Pull the people back from the building.

When you want to destroy a building the genral termionaology is Bring the nuilding down.