From Alex Jones (whom I do not fully agree with, reader beware) including a link to the video of the Larry Silverstein interview.
U r ignorin the fact that any building is stronger at the base, WTC collapsed to Ground Zero, that fishy too.leopold99 said:
Dont forget the precision of the collapse. Instead of falling on oneside it just sat down. It should have fell in one of the fires side. Ie. If it could collapse.leopold99 said:
Hurricane Angel said:
No, stuff being found. And actually a B25 hit the Empire State Building, I think. Bet they found chunks of everything all over.
Again, though - assuming he did, why is that evidence of a conspiracy? Demo work can be set up quickly at need.
Geoff
Uh, because that's omitted from the official 9/11 Report.
So here we have a report saying fire brought down WTC 7 instead of it being intentionally demolished and then we also have the question of how the place was rigged up so quickly to be pulled.
Those are two gefilte things right off the bat.
Denial?
- N
Gefilte things right off the bat? Should I draw something from your reference, Neildo?
More to the point: would it matter particularly how WTC7 was destroyed or demolished, if the main thrust of the matter was the planes crashing into WTC 1 and 2? I don't think we can deny they were hit by aircraft, at least.
There's this too: if the point was to knock the buildings down with aircraft, so that Americans would hate islam and support the war in Iraq, then why plant explosives? If they knew the explosives were necessary to knock the buildings down, then why crash the planes into them in the first place? Surely they must have imagined there would be an inquiry?? - an inquiry that would find that two planes crashing into towers would be insufficient to topple them, based on their particular construction, no?
Why crash the planes into them if it would become known that the planes couldn't do the job? Why plant the explosives if they were going to crash the planes into them? Why do this particular job at all if it would become rapidly apparent that the planes couldn't have done the job in the first place? Hell, a poster here found a doc on the issue after a very short search. Are we to assume the secret Lizardoid-CIA-Mossad cabal (those idolaters! what evil they do!) didn't have any engineers on staff? Why not just use a particularly large bomb in the building itself?
Or, instead, is it really just a matter of lunatics learning to fly aircraft and piloting them into buildings? Is the simple answer necessarily the wrong one?
If we're going to apply Ockham's Razor, let's try to do so indiscriminately.
Geoff
More to the point: would it matter particularly how WTC7 was destroyed or demolished, if the main thrust of the matter was the planes crashing into WTC 1 and 2? I don't think we can deny they were hit by aircraft, at least.
There's this too: if the point was to knock the buildings down with aircraft, so that Americans would hate islam and support the war in Iraq, then why plant explosives? If they knew the explosives were necessary to knock the buildings down, then why crash the planes into them in the first place? Surely they must have imagined there would be an inquiry?? - an inquiry that would find that two planes crashing into towers would be insufficient to topple them, based on their particular construction, no?
Why crash the planes into them if it would become known that the planes couldn't do the job? Why plant the explosives if they were going to crash the planes into them? Why do this particular job at all if it would become rapidly apparent that the planes couldn't have done the job in the first place? Hell, a poster here found a doc on the issue after a very short search. Are we to assume the secret Lizardoid-CIA-Mossad cabal (those idolaters! what evil they do!) didn't have any engineers on staff? Why not just use a particularly large bomb in the building itself?
Or, instead, is it really just a matter of lunatics learning to fly aircraft and piloting them into buildings? Is the simple answer necessarily the wrong one?
If we're going to apply Ockham's Razor, let's try to do so indiscriminately.
Geoff
I don't deny it's..."gefilte", whatever that's supposed to mean. I assume "odd" or "suspicious", although I wouldn't ever use the term that way.
If anything seems "suspicious", I would say it would be that it sounds like an insurance scam to me. Again, for those with the right connections, not at all hard to arrange in an emergency.
Geoff
If anything seems "suspicious", I would say it would be that it sounds like an insurance scam to me. Again, for those with the right connections, not at all hard to arrange in an emergency.
Geoff
Why do you keep asking questions expecting everyone to grovel to your whims? You could just as easily think of the answers yourself, right? You could prove me wrong on this one by playing the idiot game, though you're not an idiot from what I can tell.
2 - Apparently some bigwigs in the engineering community did say it was impossible, but then changed their minds a couple weeks later, and refusing to add further comments. Suspicious? Another engineer (working for the company that certified the steel used in the WTC) wrote it was strange that his colleagues changed their minds. He was fired after that.
3 - Drama. Imagine the scenario where the buildings just "blew up". The whole city would be like "WTF?!?!?! ZERGLING RUSH?", and it would be just like 1993 except the building was gone. But with the planes the entire world was watching and waiting after the impacts, and then the collapse added that much needed "sway" to really hating whoever did this. Agree?
4 - Actually they had a pretty good idea of what they were doing regarding the impossibility of a building collapse. See, a large plane like a 757 had never hit a building before, and the B-25 Mitchell was tiny. So the story was that the plane had damaged the fireproofing on the steel which weakened it, although the plane disintegrated and couldn't do that much damage. The general American public doesn't usually scrutinize what they're told on the news or by the government, and if they do theres a stigma associated with it (the reason you're not really listening to our explanations), which results in any alternative ideas being brushed off as crazy.
A personal question to you Geoff, what do you think of the investigation by the commission and FEMA?
In the end it's not a matter of what exactly happened to the Twin Towers, but why America decided to go to war with Afghanistan if it really had nothing to do with it.
Why did you say this? Did the discussion progress by saying something everyone knows, and nobody denies?
1 - Because how are they to prove who set the bombs were a bunch of muslims? Not as concretely as a plane hijacking, right?
2 - Apparently some bigwigs in the engineering community did say it was impossible, but then changed their minds a couple weeks later, and refusing to add further comments. Suspicious? Another engineer (working for the company that certified the steel used in the WTC) wrote it was strange that his colleagues changed their minds. He was fired after that.
3 - Drama. Imagine the scenario where the buildings just "blew up". The whole city would be like "WTF?!?!?! ZERGLING RUSH?", and it would be just like 1993 except the building was gone. But with the planes the entire world was watching and waiting after the impacts, and then the collapse added that much needed "sway" to really hating whoever did this. Agree?
4 - Actually they had a pretty good idea of what they were doing regarding the impossibility of a building collapse. See, a large plane like a 757 had never hit a building before, and the B-25 Mitchell was tiny. So the story was that the plane had damaged the fireproofing on the steel which weakened it, although the plane disintegrated and couldn't do that much damage. The general American public doesn't usually scrutinize what they're told on the news or by the government, and if they do theres a stigma associated with it (the reason you're not really listening to our explanations), which results in any alternative ideas being brushed off as crazy.
Let's assume this is true. None of them were Afghani, and most were Saudis, so why would we go to war with Afghanistan? And don't forget the list of hijackers compiled by the FBI, where half of the supposed hijackers were actually alive and well in the middle east. Again, if their list is wrong, what justification has the government in going to war? Here's a hint, none. Because the investigation was so half-assed, it couldn't be considered nearly solid enough to warrant military action.
A personal question to you Geoff, what do you think of the investigation by the commission and FEMA?
In the end it's not a matter of what exactly happened to the Twin Towers, but why America decided to go to war with Afghanistan if it really had nothing to do with it.
GeoffP said:
Well, thats one thing we agree with. He did scam the insurance... but wouldn't he have to know the attacks were coming in order to set up those bombs? Unless he kept them hidden in the corner until the right day.............
Yes, it does matter how WTC 7 was destroyed because it no longer remains "just some Arabs crashing two planes into WTC 1 & 2". We now have the involvement of other people, American moneymen involved.
And yes, those two towers were hit by aircraft, however, if explosives were used to intentionally bring down WTC 7 by us, then who's to say the same couldn't have happened with WTC 1 & 2? People reported explosions there and others claim that those two planes alone could not bring down those towers by themselves. If the owner of the World Trade Center is behind the bringing down of one of his buildings, who's to say he couldn't have been involved with the whole thing from the get-go?
Why the need to plant explosives? Probably because those two airliners weren't enough to bring the tower's down? And why use planes in the first place if it's not enough to bring them down? For emotional effect. We all SAW the planes crashing into the towers. That has a much more emotional effect on the populace than some explosion happening.
Emotion is required to lure people into doing one's bidding. It makes people not see clearly. It also makes people react overzealous and do anything possible to strike back. And guess what? So far the majority of the population has been behind Bush and his adminstration has gotten away with everything they've wanted and continue to do so. Our freedoms and liberties get chipped away daily while their pockets get fatter.
If you're thinking just using one big bomb to bring down the World Trade Center, you're thinking in pretty small and basic terms. A lot more is required to make everything that has happened up till now happen, and it's why it all has.
Ah, the imfamous Ockham's Razor, the last resort for debaters. No, lunatics flying aircraft into the WTC isn't the simplest answer. Why? Because we have documented proof of the owner of the WTC being involved with taking down the 3rd tower that fell. That involvement right there makes your simple "two planes into two towers" answer void. Not only that, but hey, we still have another impact such as the Pentagon where there is absolutely no proof of an airliner crashing into the Pentagon, but we have to take their word that one did.
Gefilte is a fish. So when I say that, I mean something is fishy. But not only is it a fish, it's a fish used primarily in Jewish cuisine.
What, so you're saying the 9/11 Case is closed? So quick and simple like that? Here we have things not mentioned to most such as one of the other towers being intentionally brought down by our own people. That's one helluva big thing to leave out.
Lol.
What's that one line in Dune? I see plots within plots?
- N
how do you wire a building for explosives if its on fire?
answer,you cant,it takes at least a few days to wire a building of that size with a small enough crew so nobody notices you cutting away large internal chunks of the building.
and Majicly Ws cousin runs the security firm incharge of WTC security,and the security in the londing bombings!!!
wow,what a coincidence.
like batman said''i dont belive in coincidence''.and neither do I.
answer,you cant,it takes at least a few days to wire a building of that size with a small enough crew so nobody notices you cutting away large internal chunks of the building.
and Majicly Ws cousin runs the security firm incharge of WTC security,and the security in the londing bombings!!!
wow,what a coincidence.
like batman said''i dont belive in coincidence''.and neither do I.
Hurricane Angel said:
Yes, grovel before me! Kneel in the might of my awesome intellect! All shall look on my power and despair!
What, because radical muslims never plant bombs?
It'd be as easy as "a bomb knocked down our building and lookie we intercepted a wiretap". Done and done. Long weekend for the Lizardoid/Massad/CIA/Illuminati crowd.
Declining comment through sheer embarrassment is possible. Given the structural damage possible (50% at 500C according to that report), the collapse is exceedingly likely and if I'd given an opinion like that without having seen that fact, I'd be a little embarrassed too. I don't think people should lose their jobs over it, but there's a lot of patriots in high places.
Yes and no. If you f-ed up the conspiracy, you'd enable a lot of conspiracy theorists and get people pissed off at the government rather than the intended target. I'd be considerably more pissed at a bombing that killed all the people in the WTC. Hell, why not just blow up a church or something? Or Lincoln's monument? An orphanage? If that's the point, there are better targets.
No, I am listening to your positions and I just don't agree. A 757 clearly does a lot of damage to a building - witness the impact at the Pentagon. The thing has a huge mass and incredible kinetic energy. Combined with the combustibles in the building itself, what do you expect?
That I'm having a little trouble believing.
On the other hand, what exactly would that disprove? That the FBI hadn't identified the right people? That other radical muslims used someone else's IDs? Here's a good conspiracy theory - 19 lunatics DID crash the jets into the building, but some of them used IDs from other people who just looked like them in order to discredit the follow-up investigation. After all, they might think that biological evidence wouldn't survive the fire - and voila! no one can be too sure who took over the planes. They're forced to go by the passenger roster and it's then that you produce the real people whom the passports belonged to. 'Aha! Gotcha, American media!' you might say at that point, stirring up anti-American sentiment via al-Jazeera or whatever other source you use and cementing the stranglehold of your reign on people you've deliberately impoverished. Now, I didn't explicitly say "Saudi Arabia"...well, actually I just did. Or maybe you simply look around for guys that look like those guys or who have the same last names or maybe you just have the hijackers assume the names of other, innocent people in the home countries.
Easy enough to do, and if I can think of it, even radical islam can.
Here you and I quite agree - the war was pointless. If terrorism is to be avoided, simply cut off such countries from all future immigration or visitation and leave well enough alone. End oil dependence and you can give them the economic chop as well. If indeed the despoilers and idolaters give them so much grief, let them alone to their endless navel-gazing so that we can get back to prostration before the golden calf, or whatever it is that we're thought to be doing here.
I haven't investigated it in great detail, really - not enough time.
Well, administrations in every single country in the world have been merely stupid before, or made errors. They do happen, you know.
Geoff
It matters for it was destroyed on 9/11/2001. There were fires , No one can place detonators while the buildings on fire.GeoffP said:
Any plane crash creates headlines worldwide,
This was a Psycological attack,
The bombs killed more than just in the plane crash.
They had already tested the strenght of WTC in previous Bomb Attacks.