Grand Jury will look at evidence of explosives used to take down WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on 9/11

[Fatal_Bert]

I was talking with a good friend of mine Friday night. We've never really talked about 9/11 before but it came up. He's 37 and has no memory of building 7 so I started showing him video of the WTC7. Hiss initial reaction was to tell me the video was fake. He was telling me theres no way that video was real, and that if another building that size had collapsed on 9/11 he would have heard about it.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

I'm not one who believes it was a missle that flew into the Pentagon. I have no reason to believe it wasn't a boeing 757 full of passengers that hit it.
I have lots of reasons to believe it wasn't Hani Hanjour who piloted that aircraft into the Pentagon though.

The name didn't ring a bell so I had to google him...the reasons not to believe, I assume are his abysmal marks at all flight schools he attended over and against the seeming difficult mauever it would have take to impact the Pentagon in the way it was impacted?

And for clarity's sake, I wasn't putting the Tomahawk theory out there as one of yours, it's just one that cropped up in the thread. To me, it's just so weird that there's this perfect little whole in the building and nothing else. When you look at the impact to the Towers, there's a huge jagged opening....but the Pentagon? A near perfect circle, barely big enough for the fuselage itself to squeeze through....now, I know it's apples and oranges comparing commercial building defenses to the Pentagon's but still, my primal brain has issues with that one.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

I was talking with a good friend of mine Friday night. We've never really talked about 9/11 before but it came up. He's 37 and has no memory of building 7 so I started showing him video of the WTC7. Hiss initial reaction was to tell me the video was fake. He was telling me theres no way that video was real, and that if another building that size had collapsed on 9/11 he would have heard about it.

That's odd...I'm still south of 40 (if only a little) and I clearly remember it. If he wasn't glued to the news all day, though, he could easily have missed it. It happened well after the other two fell.

 

[Hotdiggitydog]

Care to share what they showed or is it top secret?

The title of one video is "In Plane Sight". It showed NYC firefighters who were at the scene explaining how before each floor collapsed, there were puffs of smoke coming from the edges of the buildings like a miniature explosion had occurred. It showed up close pictures of the planes that hit the towers didn't have windows like a passenger plane. It showed that the planes had a tank almost the length of the plane under the belly of the plane unlike regular passenger planes. It showed that a split second before both planes hit the towers, there was a spark introduced. It went into details like the design of the elevator shafts that would anchor the building. It showed examples of other skyscrapers that had ben hit by planes or had damaging fires that never collapsed.Those are just a few of the points the video brings out. I went to a seminar in Atlanta after it happened and they gave out two videos. I have moved and packed and unpacked several times since then. When I find them I'm willing to share the info.

HDD

 

[rOmiLaYu]

The title of one video is "In Plane Sight". It showed NYC firefighters who were at the scene explaining how before each floor collapsed, there were puffs of smoke coming from the edges of the buildings like a miniature explosion had occurred. It showed up close pictures of the planes that hit the towers didn't have windows like a passenger plane. It showed that the planes had a tank almost the length of the plane under the belly of the plane unlike regular passenger planes. It showed that a split second before both planes hit the towers, there was a spark introduced. It went into details like the design of the elevator shafts that would anchor the building. It showed examples of other skyscrapers that had ben hit by planes or had damaging fires that never collapsed.Those are just a few of the points the video brings out. I went to a seminar in Atlanta after it happened and they gave out two videos. I have moved and packed and unpacked several times since then. When I find them I'm willing to share the info.

HDD

It's been on YouTube now for about eight years.

 

[Bypass]

 

[Bypass]

 

[Bypass]

 

[SirBannedAlot]

The name didn't ring a bell so I had to google him...the reasons not to believe, I assume are his abysmal marks at all flight schools he attended over and against the seeming difficult mauever it would have take to impact the Pentagon in the way it was impacted?

And for clarity's sake, I wasn't putting the Tomahawk theory out there as one of yours, it's just one that cropped up in the thread. To me, it's just so weird that there's this perfect little whole in the building and nothing else. When you look at the impact to the Towers, there's a huge jagged opening....but the Pentagon? A near perfect circle, barely big enough for the fuselage itself to squeeze through....now, I know it's apples and oranges comparing commercial building defenses to the Pentagon's but still, my primal brain has issues with that one.

Usually it takes skill not to crash the plane... I am thinking he had the skillset to crash it. haha

 

[SirBannedAlot]

It's been on YouTube now for about eight years.

I like his opening argument, about how as long as there is one piece of evidence, no matter how flimsy, it becomes a possibility...

It could be crap evidence. It could be wrong... It could be evidence that would get laughed out of any court in the country... But he tries to add legitimacy to conspiracy theories by claiming that they are "possible"...

Ok, sure... It might be a 1 in 3 billion chance, but I guess that is still "possible"...