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

[SirBannedAlot]

Half of his "questions" have been answered on shows like Mythbusters over the years...

How does steel melt? It didn't.

How does a plane only make a 65 feet wide hole? Because the wings were not strong enough to smash through the hardened walls...

This guy has a child's understanding of physics, based on this video...

 

[SirBannedAlot]

He goes on and uses people's words against them... Someone in a book said there was a 100 foot wide crater... But the hole was only 65 feet wide...

So?

Someone's recollection, or their personal estimation of distance, which likely was distorted by all that was going on at the time, didn't jive with what someone with a measuring tape found after the fact? That's "evidence of a cover up?"

Honkey please... This guy is a weak version of Art Bell and Alex Jones...

 

[SirBannedAlot]

We see this all the time when there is an attack, a big car accident, some sort of traumatic event... You get 10 eye witnesses and question them and you get many different stories... so much of it is based on perception, which is often less than accurate in such situations...

All it proves is how subject to errors that human perception can be under duress. Which we already knew.

Still doesn't prove government blew up our own buildings to go steal Iraq's oil, that we never ended up getting...

 

[Fatal_Bert]

We see this all the time when there is an attack, a big car accident, some sort of traumatic event... You get 10 eye witnesses and question them and you get many different stories... so much of it is based on perception, which is often less than accurate in such situations...

All it proves is how subject to errors that human perception can be under duress. Which we already knew.

Still doesn't prove government blew up our own buildings to go steal Iraq's oil, that we never ended up getting...

It's not about stealing anyones oil. They can have their oil and sell it for however much they want. They had just better not sell their oil for anything other the the US dollar. It's important to understand that.

Maybe these guys will do a show on it and then you'll understand

 

[SirBannedAlot]

He also asks, "Why don't we see pictures of the plane, or pieces of the wings at the Pentagon?"

We do. The pics were released and clearly show small parts of the plan, fuselage, etc...

At which point they will claim they are photoshopped by the FBI, etc...

The video, is clown shoes.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

I love the comments... people saying, "As I did my own research"... LOL

Yeah, you googled some other nutcases who also have no first hand knowledge of the situation and you found ample comfirmation bias...

But it's on the internet, so it must be true! haha

 

[SirBannedAlot]

He is claiming that "They covered up early news reports of explosions"...

What the hell do you think a jumbo jet full of fuel slamming into a building at 300mph is going to sound like, to the average person? Especially when the jet fuel ignites, which we clearly see in the videos that people took? An explosion, perhaps?

 

[SirBannedAlot]

In the first couple hours, people were in shock, reports were sketchy, communications were sketchy and nobody knew what the hell was going on...

Trying to take every word as gospel, and then claiming that inaccuracies and inconsistencies are proof of some sinister plot, is idiotic...

 

[Fatal_Bert]

For what it's worth I haven't watched that video and don't really care too. Like I said earlier it's not the conspiracy theorist that tell me something is wrong, it's the great lengths the NIST and other official documents go to make everything work on top of about a million coincidences.

There's a funny phenomenon going on this thread. When I state something from the NIST reports, people challenge it with hypothesis of their own and call me a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Like members in the beginning of this thread coming up with their own conspiracies about how the molten steel formed. They want to believe the official story and were making up scenarios to protect it not even realizing the official report says there was no molten steal or conditions that created it.

Then when I cited NIST that WTC7 fell from office fires alone, members have to make up their own conspiracies about seismic activity, and massive energy released that damaged foundations.

So when faced with the official story these members make up scenarios of their own because even they don't buy it. But then call me ignorant of physics, or place conspiracies I never claimed at my lap because I don't buy the NIST reports.. same as they don't .

 

[SirBannedAlot]

My thought is that the official story is plausible. There is more than ample physical, credible evidence to support it.

In a situation as large of a scale as this, there is zero report that will get 100% of everything 100% right. There are going to be head scratchers... there are going to be 10 people who all saw the same thing and came to 10 slightly different accounts for what they saw... There are things that engineers assumed would, or should happen, but for any of a gazillion reasons went a little differently this time... the list goes on...

That's a far cry from "Gubment did it, Bush murdered our own people for teh oilz" and half the bat**** crazy stuff I have read here, and elsewhere over the years...