"To identify the perpetrator, first know the crime."

Excellent, short piece on some of the facts of 9/11. Well-worth reading. ABN
____________

Josef Princiotta

To interest those who are "... not interested" in establishing a new, well funded, open, complete examination of the evidence surrounding the events of the Crime of 9/11. To challenge people who may doubt the integrity of "9/11 Truth Movement" To focus on a review of irrefutable evidence from the scene of the Crime of 9/11. To stay clear of Politics and Premature Conspiracy Theories. To offer only documented and proven information that will generate a desire to examine all the evidence.

LINK TO ORIGINAL

Comments

Point #10

Rivers of molten metal underneath ground zero reported days, weeks and months after 9/11???

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/04/molten-steel-flowed-under-ground-zero.html

Yes to molten metals and more!

There are so many points.
If there were ONE point that is enough to open it all up.
If that one point can be simply stated.
"There were Pre-Planted Explosives used to destroy the towers."
If there is no way to escape the irrefutable truth of that one point.
Then I want to focus on that ONE point.
'cause they don't give you any time when you try
to move them to our side..

If not this 'One Point', then may I ask,
what is the 'One Point" that you feel may fit these requirments?
Thanks to you GW2 for being and doing.
AND My thanks to ABN for this review.

"To identify the perpetrator, first know the crime"
Josef Princiotta
for
Vincent Princiotta FDNY
and
Sal J. Princiotta FDNY

the towers

Pleased to meet you!

The "one point" might just be the symmetry of the collapses and the debris fields. I can't think of any phenomenon in nature where asymmetrical damage produces such perfectly symmetrical effects. And it happened twice!

But more than any one particular point, the most powerful evidence for me has always been the videos of the collapses. When I watch the footage, all that I’ve read and heard about the speed, the symmetry, the total pulverization of building material, the fact that the two collapses were identical despite the two buildings' being wounded in different places, the pyroclastic flows, etc. gets subsumed by the imagery and I just know that it can’t be as the official story says. Maybe this isn't very scientific but it’s true.

Perhaps it’d be effective if on the radio you could get out a very easy-to-remember web address that goes directly to a video montage of the collapses. That way, people could watch when they’re alone, they would only have to devote a couple minutes of time, they could easily replay it, they wouldn’t have to defend themselves…it just might plant the seed of doubt in the minds of visual thinkers.

I think the aerial perspectives of the collapses from sort of far away are good. They get across just what behemoths those buildings were. I think this is important because, not only have a lot of people in this country never seen such a big structure, they have no concept of it! Case in point: A few years ago, I was driving along with a friend from Oregon. We passed by a new, five-story office building that had just been completed and she was practically climbing out of her seat, ooh-ing and aah-ing about how huge it was and how it dominated the whole street and how the town was starting to feel like a major metropolitan area. So, although she is very intelligent, when I told her that two 110-story buildings collapsed in ten seconds each, it just didn't mean much to her.

Also, one thing about the South Tower that I think is really interesting and that just needs to be watched in order to be grasped is the tilting of the top of the tower before it collapses. According to 911research.com, “The South Tower began its precipitous collapse at 9:59 AM. At first the portion of the tower above the crash zone began to tilt to the southeast, while the first explosions of dust began at the crash zone. Then, at about 2.5 seconds the top began to fall, and its rotation decelerated. At about the 6.5-second mark, the top was completely swallowed up by the huge growing dust cloud.” There are close-up videos of this, of course. Regardless of what you can positively determine from it in terms of explosives, it’s really weird. When people see it they can’t explain it.

(Isn’t it also weird how such incredible energy as would have been needed to produce all the effects you describe on your website couldn’t destroy that pesky paper passport!)

Anyway...I don't know if I've provided any useful information here but I will certainly continue on in the search for the elusive "one point" that sums it all up.

Thank you for all the work you've done. The points on your website are irrefutable and are presented very clearly.

Robyn