Where did the towers go?

[jaytotale]

.

[fbenario]

[quote="XxCeltics34xX"]
Paul Pierce wears uniform number 34 for the Boston Celtics - a great, great player.

[jaytotale]

.

[Gary-Welz]

Don't worry about a bad drunk, it happens to the best of us.

9/11 witness harassed by Jeff Hill aka shure (The epic drunk call)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9-3B_b77Jg

[DHD]

http://www.ZeroHedge.com just came up with an article entitled:

"Arguments Regarding the Collapse of the World Trade Center Evaporate Upon Inspection"
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/argume ... ion?page=2

that has about two pages worth of comments. I like the comment below the best:

by chindit13
on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 07:58
#1308364

Here's my latest conspiracy theory:

All the "truthers" who have gravitated to (http://www.zerohedge.com) are paid shills, psy-op types, disinformation agents and sock puppets. Their task is to discredit the entire site by making it appear to be a collection zone for the Batshit Crazies, thus making it far easier to destroy any credibility Zerohedge may have in matters related to finance, debt levels, lobbying, etc. They are doing a heck of a job making Zerohedge a laughing stock.

Yes, from GW to CogDis to David Pierre----all receive checks from Lloyd and Jamie.

Brilliant in its insidiousness. Of course, like the rest of the paid help, no invites to weekends in the Hamptons.

My comment: Looks like with the sheer number of paid shills, disinfo agents, sock puppets etc. that the unemployment problem may be solved! Looks like the economy is getting healthy again!

[Jonathan]

My not very sophisticated take would be:
the known pictures are just that - pictures, not photographs of the original.
Just as very probably all of the visual evidence presented to us.

For me, it is enough to KNOW that the towers could not have "collapsed" as they where shown to do in the pictures while the laws of physics where still in place as opposed to temporarily have been suspended for those x seconds.
(I'm talking of the appearance in relation to the alleged cause of it appearing like it did.)

I refuse to take anything the pictures show ("photographs" and "videos" alike) for reality after that gross insult.

There is much more similar stuff, of course - right here.

No point in trying to argue that the pole should be atop when all the laws of physics where seemingly bent to the point of breaking that day - but few seem to notice.

...there is a point though in pointing out that it should be where you suggest it should be - pointing in the same direction of what was said here and many places elsewhere on this forum.

[Jonathan]

Hmm... anyone has to find his/her own clues to assess the pictures.
The more viewpoints, the easier to get for different people with different backgrounds and knowledge - probably.

They could be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of viewpoints and explanations from those - but if that should happen to be the case - they where not really interested to find their own truth based on the help provided in form of all the different aspects looking at the event.

To be perfectly honest, yours never occured to me.
As it now did, it was another confirmation.
(which I do not need now anymore, but which would possibly made me see through the thing a bit earlier where I still looking for ... not the truth, but certainly for having confidence in judgeing what could NOT have happened the way it was shown)

Thanks

[Heiwa]

For me, it is enough to KNOW that the towers could not have "collapsed" as they where shown to do in the pictures while the laws of physics where still in place as opposed to temporarily have been suspended for those x seconds.

Evidently skyscrapers cannot destroy themselves or "collapse" by flying planes into the tops of them skyscrapers. It, a terror attack (??), will just produce local damages - a hole/fire - up in the weak top of the tower. The strong bottom is always safe (so that fire fighters can go up and extinguish the fire, etc).
So all pictures or videos of skyscrapers "collapsing" by gravity anywhere are fake. Actually, it has only happened twice that skyscrapers "collapse" from top down (on 911 2001 at NY) and what was shown "live on TV" was just a movie broadcasted (as revealed by simonshack). In reality the towers were destroyed from bottom up in the conventional way (approved by the US Dept. of Commerce, I assume, and carried out by some US group of terrorists). I always think Ms Condoleezza Rice is involved one way or another with the terrorists, as she soon after, absurdly, blamed the whole thing on a Mr UBL hidden in an Afghan cave. Ms Rice is too smart to say such stupid things.

[Jonathan]

yepp - I capitalized the "KNOW" for that reason.
There is also very good refinement on that KNOW in articles on a site you may not much appreciate in other respects.
(there are good reasons for it - but pieces of truth are among other not so focused material there, nonetheless)

It does not matter to me - it has helped me see.

Actually, I saw, but with all the pictures and all the talk ... I was sure and then I was not...

I know physics - but pictures can be misleading even if one knows...

It is articles of Frank Legge and David Chandler on journalof911studies.com which show,
vividly, and with different approaches to the amount of presupposed knowledge, that such an event could not have happened the way it was shown by "pictures".

[edit:] well - it could, obviously, but not explainable by the official narrative and sequence and cause of the events...

[nonhocapito]

I have never seen a single photo or video depicting the Monopole at ground zero. For the life of me, I can't see where it went, nor have I seen any posts anywhere by anyone explaining what happened to said communications tower.

I think the investigation into the rubble pictures, here: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=489 sufficiently proved that, as Jonhatan said, all rubble pictures were faked as well, to be consistent with the faked collapsing images. Inconsistent perspectives, nonsensical scenes, sim-photographers on site such as Andrea Boo-her, bad compositions with firefighters and military idling about the rubble... all the traditional elements of a fake aftermath are for everyone to pick up.

Anyway, you're right: the antenna is nowhere to be seen in the rubble picture. It is possible they forgot all about it, but it is also possible they tried to put it in the rubble and realized it would lead to many other questions. I think that the rubble pictures had to be as much nondescript as possible, in order to stop the mind from wondering and picking up clues. For this reason, not only there was no antenna: but also no furniture, no computers, no carpets, no bodies etc etc.

[MrConstitutionalist]

Ok I couldnt find the topic for this so im just gonna ask. First of all im totally on board with your research and I'm asking you this cuz I want your expert opinion and I am gonna start researching it tonight. There was a pilot that was said to beflying one of those planes that lives in the town next to me. He is not around anymore. My theory is paying a few prominent victims to go relocate and start a new life with a few million to keep quiet would be very feasible. I mean they are gonna make trillions and trillions off of these endless faceless unjust wars. I just learned of the vicsims this week and tonight is my first chance to research his death, but what do you think? Do you think they may have paid a few ppl? I woke my mom up to 9/11 now i want to tell her how no one died. I already know the first thing she is gonna say is that guy John was a real person, she knew him. I think hes been paid a nice retirement if you know what i mean.