quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Being a firemen doesn`t make anyone a special authority on things 9/11.

A douche-bad NYC firemen just lost a suit trying to block that Mosque from being built near ground zero.

Ass hole is as ass hole does.

Being in the FDNY doesn`t excuse a truther from being in the lunatic fringe.

General reply:

I wasn`t feeding trolls.

My post was to share my thoughts with the normal folks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

POLITE.....I don't give a fuck what Rule posted.  I couldn't care less about his thread?  There were hundreds of bystanders.  Do you think Rule governs what I talk about????

I posted some things.  Did you look at it?  If you want to talk about something that truly is a bit curious, the perfect collapse of three buildings especially one that wasn't struck by a plane, I'm up for that conversation.  I'm not going to engage in whether planes struck the towers although I will certainly engage in a discussion regarding whether a plane struck the Pentagon. 

Ok?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

I said I was done with this fucking thread but it is like Godfather 3 "Every time I try to get out they pull me back in."

Ok...attached is a link.  Go look at it.  Look at the picture of Building 7 immediately after the Towers collapsed.  There is a gash from about the 20th floor down to the lobby.  It is NOT an even that could have even remotely caused that skyskraper to collapse.

Remember, folks, when the Oklahoma City bombing happened, it carved a huge scoop out of the center of that building.  AND THE BUILDING DID NOT COLLAPSE!  The building stood with an ENORMOUS amount of it missing.  The difference in damage to the two buildings is palpable and yet Building 7 collapsed all on its own 6.5 hours later?  Bullshit! 

Ok...at least to me it is bullshit. 

Check this out: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/230806wtccomplex.htm

There are also plenty of pictures of Building 7 that you can look at as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

I said I was done with this fucking thread but it is like Godfather 3 "Every time I try to get out they pull me back in."

Ok...attached is a link.  Go look at it.  Look at the picture of Building 7 immediately after the Towers collapsed.  There is a gash from about the 20th floor down to the lobby.  It is NOT an even that could have even remotely caused that skyskraper to collapse.

Remember, folks, when the Oklahoma City bombing happened, it carved a huge scoop out of the center of that building.  AND THE BUILDING DID NOT COLLAPSE!  The building stood with an ENORMOUS amount of it missing.  The difference in damage to the two buildings is palpable and yet Building 7 collapsed all on its own 6.5 hours later?  Bullshit! 

Ok...at least to me it is bullshit. 

Check this out: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/230806wtccomplex.htm

There are also plenty of pictures of Building 7 that you can look at as well.

Oh good, a Prison Planet link.

That should solve the matter.

I mean if you can't trust Alex Jones then who can you trust?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

did you see it on tv too?

it was a smash hit.

best ratings I ever saw and for all networks equally..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
The damage to the column was just one factor.

Damage to what column?  Got pictures?  Samples?  How do vertical columns get damaged by vertical falling debris?  Ever ask yourself that?  

Here we go again with the amateur scientists sleuthing around because they have an agenda to deny. A vertical column is merely an upright column. The idea it couldn't be damaged by overhead material falling on it (which wasn't truly vertical BTW but was falling in a haphazzard fashion) is utterly absurd.

quote:


You are still comparing it to another building where you have no idea if it was structurally the same. That is the flaw in that argument. Furthermore the damage done to each was not similar. Theorists have to move beyond simplistic comparisons. Only an expert could truly compare such things.

Well unless of course it is so obvious that a moron can see and understand it.  Do anyone need experts to tell them when a cock is in their mouth?   I dount it!  I bet people can figure that out all by themselves.

Its all a matter of what you know and who ya blow..

Interesting example, which makes it seem you are a sucker of cock. Maybe you are dumb enough to think that comparing complex physically divergent structures is as simple as knowing when there is a cock in your mouth or not but few others would be as daft enough as to think that.

quote:


It was a combination of extensive damage and fire which if left unabaited would damage the annealing of the steel.

That is not the reason or criteria for damaging in your words the annealing of steal.

Aside from that who made the assessment?

There is no record of an assessment of the damage with an actual name that we can sue.  Go ahead and try and find who made the assessments and see if you find any certified accounting of the matter!  YOU WONT!  It does not exist.  shocking!

The whole damn investigation is assumption.

How would you like to go before a court and they assume you killed someone and then hung you!

Well that is what took place here!  Listen to the ploys NIST uses to avoid checking for explosives.  They are all traitors.

Your paranoia has clearly got the better of you. NIST used a very large number of leading investigators which for exampleare listed from pages iii to xii of the final report http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf - the number of experts and investigators goes into three figures. The credentials of the leaders of the investigation are listed on the NIST website http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/ as well which shows them to be notable individuals in their respective fields.

quote:


Steel buildings have collapsed due to fire. Here is one thirteen story building in Holland http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/105731/46ccb8cd/bouwkunde_gebouw_delft_stort_in_topic.html - the steel wasn't holding up nearly as much of a load.

The question is can you tell why wtc was done by explosives "just by looking at it"?  Can you tell the difference between a building brought down with explosives versus the one you posted in your example?  Its painfully obvious if you know what to look for.

The contention that virtually all conspiracists make is that no steel framed buildings have collapsed as a result of fire. This is untrue like so many of their other assertions but if the lie is repeated enough it becomes a truism.

WTC 7 does not compare with buildings brought down in a controlled demolition as many conspiracists claim. They keep claiming it fell in free fall but it took twice as long according to the video that exists. Neither did it neatly implode.

quote:


For anyone who wants to hear a physics teacher rip em a new one here you go.  But you need to have a desire for truth, if you dont then dont waste your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

That link is by high school physics teacher David Chandler http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/01/david-chandler.html who has got a lot wrong. For example he claimed to show proof of a charge blowing a corner column on the WTC North Tower but made an error in his calculations and inadvertently did an excellent job of proving that in fact the speed of the descending block is equal to the speed of the ejected material
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/when-will-david-chandler-fix-his-errors.html - he is perhaps best known for claiming NIST lied about the timing of the fall of WTC 7 but this is incorrect. He deceitfully measured from the West side of the building, not the East side where the first penthouse collapsed and the first signs of significant movement took place leading to collapse from that side of the building: here is a video that measured the fall in real time on video software: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA

quote:


Many compare WTC 7 with the Madrid building which is a steel framed building that was also on fire but again the comparison isn't at all commensurate: http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm - the steel structure of that building (not the concrete reinforced steel core) actually collapsed after a shorter time than WTC 7!

Ok if that was not good enough how about a spanish tv broadcast on the matter where they habe a 30 year demolition veteran weigh in on the matter!  

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2lcog_wtc-7-exploding_news

The clip doesn't work. The fact remains that the Madrid building was a different type of structure with a tough inner core and a steel outer frame that collapsed within a fraction of the time of WTC 7: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid)

quote:

The structure was divided into two halves by a technical floor without windows. It was a very solid building, with a central core of reinforced concrete that resisted the high temperatures of the fire without collapsing. [...]

Around midnight, on Saturday, February 12, 2005, a fire was detected on the 21st floor. The fire spread quickly throughout the entire building, leading to the collapse of the outermost, steel parts of the upper floors;

quote:

quote:


After reading your reply I have to say it seems that you don't look at the material with an open mind. Why would I say that? Well you are credulous when looking at the material from sites with an extremely dubious reputation like Prison Planet.

I have news for you, when I was big on arguing this matter I always went to that debunker cite for some of the best ass kicking material on the web.  I have yet to see one entry they made that stands up to scinetific scrutiny.  Use it if you like but dont get pissed at me when you wind up eating it all.

Well OK, I guess you drank down your Conspiracy 101 Kool Aid long ago! [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Here we go again with the amateur scientists sleuthing around because they have an agenda to deny. A vertical column is merely an upright column. The idea it couldn't be damaged by overhead material falling on it (which wasn't truly vertical BTW but was falling in a haphazzard fashion) is utterly absurd.

Really?
Provide the evidence of this haphazard fall.  Usually objects fall down and down is vertical.

Anyone incapable of determining the facts by the evidence or lack thereof of and can only parrot web sites are merely blank check authority-dependents hence incapable of determining if the so called experts *cough* are correct or incorrect.

quote:


I repeat:
Damage to what columns?  Got pictures?  Samples?  How do vertical columns get damaged by vertical falling debris? 

Either put up the tests and assessment data used to make the determination that column was damaged to the point of failure, or all we have here is another expert-dependent EPIC FAIL.

quote:


Interesting example, which makes it seem you are a sucker of cock. Maybe you are dumb enough to think that comparing complex physically divergent structures is as simple as knowing when there is a cock in your mouth or not but few others would be as daft enough as to think that.

Explain what a physically divergent structure is, and please use  correct verbiage so us scientists are able to review it.

Oh never mind.

quote:

quote:


It was a combination of extensive damage and fire which if left unabaited would damage the annealing of the steel.

There is no record of an assessment of the damage with an actual name that we can sue.  Go ahead and try and find who made the assessments and see if you find any certified accounting of the matter!  YOU WONT!  It does not exist.  shocking!

The whole damn investigation is assumption.

How would you like to go before a court and they assume you killed someone and then hung you!

Well that is what took place here!  Listen to the ploys NIST uses to avoid checking for explosives.  They are all traitors.

Your paranoia has clearly got the better of you. NIST used a very large number of leading investigators which for exampleare listed from pages iii to xii of the final report http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf - the number of experts and investigators goes into three figures. The credentials of the leaders of the investigation are listed on the NIST website http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/ as well which shows them to be notable individuals in their respective fields.

I dont give a flying fuck if they hired every scumbag on the planet.  Stop dodging the question with bullshit responses.

The position of the official "story" is an EPIC FAIL. 

So provide me with the data and assessment of the decibel level of the explosions to prove that they were in fact not loud enough.

I want a NAME, I want to know who to sue!  I want to know who was there to take those measurements and why they were there with a sound meter in the first place.

Another EPIC FAIL and more proof that so-called experts are lying and people that believe them are fucking suckers.

Now post that data or go down in flames.  *again*

quote:


The contention that virtually all conspiracists make is that no steel framed buildings have collapsed as a result of fire. This is untrue like so many of their other assertions but if the lie is repeated enough it becomes a truism.

Sort of like the osama bin laden lie?  On tv no less than 20 times per day for 5 years.

However I did not make that analogy did I?  You did!  I dont give a fuck what every bozo on the planet says, stick to the points.

quote:



WTC 7 does not compare with buildings brought down in a controlled demolition as many conspiracists claim. They keep claiming it fell in free fall but it took twice as long according to the video that exists. Neither did it neatly implode.

Even NIST acknowledged that the building free fell.  The video posted shows a side by side comparison. People that hang around on parrot debunker sites get shit on face.  The question is why would anyone out here deny the truth like this?.

quote:

quote:


For anyone who wants to hear a physics teacher rip em a new one here you go.  But you need to have a desire for truth, if you dont then dont waste your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

That link is by high school physics teacher David Chandler http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/01/david-chandler.html who has got a lot wrong. For example he claimed to show proof of a charge blowing a corner column on the WTC North Tower but made an error in his calculations and inadvertently did an excellent job of proving that in fact the speed of the descending block is equal to the speed of the ejected material
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/when-will-david-chandler-fix-his-errors.html - he is perhaps best known for claiming NIST lied about the timing of the fall of WTC 7 but this is incorrect. He deceitfully measured from the West side of the building, not the East side where the first penthouse collapsed and the first signs of significant movement took place leading to collapse from that side of the building: here is a video that measured the fall in real time on video software: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA

So you are again claiming the speed of the fall is not freefall when NIST acknowledged it and changed their report to reflect it?

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)

another official EPIC FAIL!

Like using sound level this is one MORE of many availiable examples of how the gubafia is FUCKING you all and fucking this country by fraud!

quote:

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

•Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
•Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
•Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

quote:

Many compare WTC 7 with the Madrid building which is a steel framed building that was also on fire but again the comparison isn't at all commensurate: http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm - the steel structure of that building (not the concrete reinforced steel core) actually collapsed after a shorter time than WTC 7!

Many may, I did not.  So why bring it in?  Some people think aliens and moonbeams and yet others are foolish enough to think planes and fire did it.

Madrid has nothing to do with this.

quote:

quote:


Now pay attention:.

Ok if that was not good enough how about a spanish tv broadcast on the matter where they have a 30 year demolition veteran weigh in on the matter!  

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2lcog_wtc-7-exploding_news

The clip doesn't work.

It works just fine fix your computer.

quote:


The fact remains that the Madrid building was a different type of structure with a tough inner core and a steel outer frame that collapsed within a fraction of the time of WTC 7: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid)


The fact still remains that I did not bring madrid in you did.  Madrid is irrelevant and a red herring.

quote:


After reading your reply I have to say it seems that you don't look at the material with an open mind. Why would I say that? Well you are credulous when looking at the material from sites with an extremely dubious reputation like Prison Planet.

One HUGE line of bullshit. 

I rarely look at alex, I do not use  conspiracy sites to form my opinion. 

quote:


Claims that I do is a lame attempt to paint me in with those of you who are academically and experiencially disadvantaged "expert-dependent" and or koolaid drinking retards is purely bullshit with no basis in fact no different than name calling.  you aint no daisy.

Once again official liars go down in flames.

quote:

quote:


I have news for you, when I was big on arguing this matter I always went to that debunker cite for some of the best ass kicking material on the web.  I have yet to see one entry they made that stands up to scinetific scrutiny.  Use it if you like but dont get pissed at me when you wind up eating it all.

Well OK, I guess you drank down your Conspiracy 101 Kool Aid long ago! [:D]

yeh just seen how the AMATURE SCIENTISTS FORCED YOUR EXPERTS TO CORRECT THEIR BULLSHIT LIES and come up with another line of bullshit lie.

quote:


HOWEVER in that process;

NIST now acknowledges in their final report that it was freefall and nothing anyone can say to get around it.  The genie is out of the bottle and no shill crybaby whiner or sob story can put it back in.

Koolaide?  LOL people have to really out there (or expert-dependents) to get drunk on water.
Does it feel good to be on the titanic btw? LOL

quote:


In the fields the bodies burning

As the war machine keeps turning

Death and hatred to mankind

Poisoning their brainwashed minds

Oh lord yeah!

quote:

ORIGINAL: CalifChick

I can't believe you all are arguing this again. Was anything new said this time or was it same old, same old?

Cali

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy
WRONG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: CalifChick

I can't believe you all are arguing this again. Was anything new said this time or was it same old, same old?

Cali

Look at the links I provided in posts 153 and post 147 and that is only the zit on the wing of the gnat sitting on the beetle sitting on top of the iceberg if these wannabs want to go around with me.

However its already been proven beyond any "REASONABLE" doubt the gubafia is lying through their fucking teeth, and they have been busted by what the the "expert-dependent" losers call "conspiracy theorists".  aint that a bitch?

Thats is new.

Thats BIG and

That rocks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: CalifChick

I can't believe you all are arguing this again. Was anything new said this time or was it same old, same old?

Cali

Look at the links I provided in posts 153 and post 147 and that is only the zit on the wing of the gnat sitting on the beetle sitting on top of the iceberg if these wannabs want to go around with me.

However its already been proven beyond any "REASONABLE" doubt the gubafia is lying through their fucking teeth, and they have been busted by what the the "expert-dependent" losers call "conspiracy theorists".  aint that a bitch?

Thats is new.

Thats BIG and

That rocks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: CalifChick
I can't believe you all are arguing this again. Was anything new said this time or was it same old, same old?

Cali

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

LOL R0 this is too much, all the pictures show material coming from the sides of the two main towers in diagonals.

PICTURES GUB ASSESSMENTS, SIGNED AFFIDAVITS!


Where the fuck are they?


R0 don't start making unreasonable demands, I have already taken a good deal of time responding in detail to your bullshit.

What you dont have is admission you have noting! 

Too bad you lose. PLONK!

You aint no daisy!

Next!!

Here is an answer to your desire for some proof of serious damage to the columns http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm which includes photographs of damage such as photograph three of a large area near the base of the building that was "scooped out" - self evidently serious damage where colums are located.

WHAT?  a few broken windows?  A few TINY SUPERFICIAL dents?  LMAO

People who are expert dependents believe any fucking thing why is that?

LOOK DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT AN ASSESSMENT IS? DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT OFFICIAL IS?

Dont pass off bullshit for data, just another EPIC FAIL to support the gubafias' claims.

You cannot provide that data as it does not exist but you certainly can dance with the other poster.

Do you take requests btw?




WTF, a physically divergent structure is common English simply meaning in this context a building constructed differently. Everyone knows there are numerous ways in which buildings can be constructed.

Oh ok more meaningless off point drivel. 

FACTS talk bullshit walks!

Need donations for new shoes?


I was replying to your point about the the investigation being assumption in which I cited the credentials of the people involved. You asked for names of those that did assessments.

Yeh and now they had to eat dirt and fix their FINAL REPORT because of conspiracy kooks who kicked their asses and made them look like fools in public just like their supporters LMAO 

You are unbelievable bringing up peripheral issues to try to reinforce your point.

The POINT IS they had to rewrite their fucking report to what the conspiracy kooks claimed! LMAO

I don't give a fuck who you want to sue. It is of no relevance unless you want to sue Osama. It was a terrorist attack for fuck sake. Buildings are not designed to be impervious to any type of destructive force.

Its relevant to FRAUD that is being perpetrated on the people by a gang of thugs called the gubafia


You probably did make such a claim in the past. I wouldn't put it past you. In any case you were replying to a post I had directed at another person so you stick to the points if you are replying to my posts.

Probably?

Thats cuz I'm your huckleberry!

quote:



Even NIST acknowledged that the building free fell.  The video posted shows a side by side comparison. People that hang around on parrot debunker sites get shit on face.  The question is why would anyone out here deny the truth like this?.

I didn't say it didn't go into free-fall at one stage, it did for a short time latterly but it was only a fraction of the overall time.

If there is anyone on here that gets shit on their faces repeatedly, it is your good self.

Nice!  I like backpeddling you are doing fine!

quote:


For anyone who wants to hear a physics teacher rip em a new one here you go.  But you need to have a desire for truth, if you dont then dont waste your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

quote:

So you are again claiming the speed of the fall is not freefall when NIST acknowledged it and changed their report to reflect it?

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)

another official EPIC FAIL!

Like using sound level this is one MORE of many availiable examples of how the gubafia is FUCKING you all and fucking this country by fraud!

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

irrelevant they admitted freefall

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

•Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
•Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
•Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

No further questions the plaintiff rests and move the court for summary judgment based on the facts that the RECORD SHOWS INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE that gubafia lied in its report, that trustees considered to be experts falsified said reports in an effort to defraud the american people, you may step down now

quote:


In the fields the bodies burning

As the war machine keeps turning

Death and hatred to mankind

Poisoning their brainwashed minds

Oh lord yeah!

quote:

I could not believe my ears! I am thoroughly convinced that there were no planes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SaMaitresse

quote:

I could not believe my ears! I am thoroughly convinced that there were no planes.

Pour ce qu'il vaut. For what is is worth. There was a plane that hit the first tower. I know this because I saw it myself. I was in New York on my honeymoon. I can not state with any certainty about the second tower, we did not stay to watch, we removed ourselves as fast as we could.

I have no reason to lie, I am not even an American. I am not particularly political, nor do I interest myself much in international affairs. But I did see that plane hit that building with my own two eyes. I will never forget it.

If you chose not to believe me, I care not. I know what happened on that morning because I was there in person.