Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
what makes them think that this glowing stuff is liquid flowing at all? couldnt it just be a big crack in the building, with a fire behind it?

[/ QUOTE ]


Take a good look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk

[Nielsio]

Another witness who reports of bombs going off in the basement of a WTC tower before the planes had hit:


http://infowars.net/articles/septemb...07Ebersole.htm

Listen to the recording @ 22minutes.
http://prisonplanet.com/audio/050907ebersole.mp3

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
Another witness who reports of bombs going off in the basement of a WTC tower before the planes had hit:


[/ QUOTE ]

So why didn't the collapse begin then? Anyone with eyes can see the collapse begin where the planes hit.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another witness who reports of bombs going off in the basement of a WTC tower before the planes had hit:


[/ QUOTE ]

So why didn't the collapse begin then? Anyone with eyes can see the collapse begin where the planes hit.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's an unusual way to deal with facts that require investigations (which have been previously completely handwaved and put away in the memoryhole).

[Kaj]

Nielsio, instead of posting more links or making sweepingly non-specific retorts, it would be nice if you directly addressed some of the points being made in this thread. That is, if you want to have a real discussion on this issue. If you don't that's fine, but then what's the point? To try and lure some impressionable kid into buying into this conspiracy without a meaningful discussion?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
To try and lure some impressionable kid into buying into this conspiracy without a meaningful discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, that is entirely the point.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Remote controlled airplanes can fly very accurate.

2. Electronically charged and remote controlled charges are easily configurable. You can do this in 5 minutes let alone an hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you provide us with a sequential explanation? Who installed the robo pilots, and who was flying them? Were the guys who broke into the cockpit also robots? And can you provide the sequential events of the remote charges being set? Which janitor let them into the crawl spaces, stuff like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to mistake the burden of proof.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Remote controlled airplanes can fly very accurate.

2. Electronically charged and remote controlled charges are easily configurable. You can do this in 5 minutes let alone an hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you provide us with a sequential explanation? Who installed the robo pilots, and who was flying them? Were the guys who broke into the cockpit also robots? And can you provide the sequential events of the remote charges being set? Which janitor let them into the crawl spaces, stuff like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to mistake the burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid YOU are mistaking the burden of proof. If you dispute what all the major news outlets claim (no, they're not 100% accurate), then you need more than "RC planes are accurate", you need some evidence or at least some plausible hypothetical scenario to explain an RC plane theory.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Remote controlled airplanes can fly very accurate.

2. Electronically charged and remote controlled charges are easily configurable. You can do this in 5 minutes let alone an hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you provide us with a sequential explanation? Who installed the robo pilots, and who was flying them? Were the guys who broke into the cockpit also robots? And can you provide the sequential events of the remote charges being set? Which janitor let them into the crawl spaces, stuff like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to mistake the burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid YOU are mistaking the burden of proof. If you dispute what all the major news outlets claim (no, they're not 100% accurate), then you need more than "RC planes are accurate", you need some evidence or at least some plausible hypothetical scenario to explain an RC plane theory.

[/ QUOTE ]


wow lol. Since when are news outlets the default position??!?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Remote controlled airplanes can fly very accurate.

2. Electronically charged and remote controlled charges are easily configurable. You can do this in 5 minutes let alone an hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you provide us with a sequential explanation? Who installed the robo pilots, and who was flying them? Were the guys who broke into the cockpit also robots? And can you provide the sequential events of the remote charges being set? Which janitor let them into the crawl spaces, stuff like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to mistake the burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid YOU are mistaking the burden of proof. If you dispute what all the major news outlets claim (no, they're not 100% accurate), then you need more than "RC planes are accurate", you need some evidence or at least some plausible hypothetical scenario to explain an RC plane theory.

[/ QUOTE ]


wow lol. Since when are news outlets the default position??!?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any evidence or a plausible scenario? If so, present it. If not, the news reporters (who appear unanimous) are the default position. Once again, you provide zero substance with your claim other than "don't believe what you hear", but give us no reason to believe what we hear from you.