|
|
the professor
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1164
Location: heartland USA |
 Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:32 am
|
 |
|
Don't you know sarcasm when you see it? |
| |
|
|
the professor
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1164
Location: heartland USA |
|
Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:34 am
|
|
|
But for a fact we do know that jets crashed into the buildings, this much is for sure! controlled explosives didn't take them down in my opinion and yes the GOV is at fault for hellishly bad security and for ignoring the countless warnings here and abroad that much we do know. |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:48 am
|
|
|
>You now suggest the very people with the ability to pull off this event, started setting off explosive devices 30 minutes before the first collapse.<
Nobody was suggesting the controlled demolition took half an hour.
But
Now that you suggest it though;
The huge explosion needed to destroy the core at it's base* would be less noticeable if timed to coincide with the impact far above.
Who could have planned on somebody surviving to talk about it.
Thanks for the suggestion.
The huge explosion of 1993 didn't bring the building down,
Just weakened it at the base.
And created a void for upper floors to collapse into.
Wow, a debunker just helped fit another piece of the puzzle together!
Thanks!
=======================================
Here is what the photographic, video and eyewitness evidence indicates:
When the tower began to fall over, in the direction of greatest damage;
Somebody threw the switch to bring the building straight down in an implosion.
To save lives!
The photo evidence clearly shows the upper section begins to topple over,
then the core is imploded causing the spire to fall into the void,
then charges cut supports on progressively lower floors.
First the core, to pull the roof and walls in, instead of letting them fall outwards as is normal.
Then the base of each floor's outer columns are cut simultaneously
(those flashes of light and puffs of smoke that blew out windows)allowing the columns to topple into the core void.
The company that would have installed the focused linear shaped charges, would have studied the aftermath of the explosion in the basement parking garage, and structural integrity after the 1993 terrorist bombing.
Controlled Demolition Inc.
Got the contract to quickly haul off the evidence before fire investigators got to look at thsoe columns and joists.
Controlled Demolition Inc. is who'd imploded the two buildings I watched fall into their own footprint years before.
They had explained how critical it is to get all charges placed precisely and detonated in the proper sequence, or the building falls over instead of into itself.
They are the company that convinced me
that buildings fall outward to the side of greatest damage.
They are also the best qualified company to implode a high rise in a controlled demolition.
That's their field of expertise.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by shatoga on 12-21-2003] |
| |
|
|
the professor
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1164
Location: heartland USA |
|
Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:46 am
|
|
|
My contention would be what switch? Do you think a demo team was in the area at the time and got the call to run in and set up explosives to bring it down in a controled manner or were they already in place? and if so how does it save lives? |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Sun Dec 21, 2003 9:59 am
|
|
|
After the massive damage caused by the 1993 terrorist bomb.
It must have been conjectured what if?
What if the 110 story building had fallen over?
visit this link to pictures of the WTC and imagine how far the towers could have spread flaming debris. http://www.september11news.com/WTCArt.htm
110 stories. Burning debris crashing into other buildings like flaming dominoes as many of those high rises collapse also, spreadingflaming debris, and so on and an out of contro firestorm.
There could have been a raging inferno beyond any possibility of control.
Smart Civil Defense would see that possibility and ask the experts.
Who knew then, and knows more now than anyone else in the world about collapsing high rise and skyscrapers?
Controlled Demolition Inc.
Just as in the speech I heard at the site of two CDI controlled demolitions:
CDI would explain how buildings, regardless of height, collapse into the area of greatest damage.
Only fools would allow the possibility of an uncontrolled collapse with massive lawsuits by all those building owners, all those survivor families.
How manycould die in an uncontrolled collapse of flaming debris and the fire storm it could cause.
50,000?
One hundred thousand?
Many many more if a fire raged out of control for days.
Wait until the very last minute.
Until that section of top floors began to topple over the side...
Then the last resort installed in 1994 or 1995 perhaps would be executed.
Bring it down into it's own footprint.
minimize collateral damage.
Look at the statistics at that link also.
up to 50,000 people could have been there.
The WTC manager told Peter Jennings that morning that normally there should have been between 15 and 25 thousand people in the towers.
Only about 4,000 people died and quite a few of them had come in from outside in rescue efforts.
Never had so few showed up for work on a Tuesday.
How coincidentally lucky!
The WTC manager himself had taken the day off to register his child in school a week late.
How coincidentally lucky!
All those hijacked airplanes had very few passengers also.
If two stood, the pasengers and crew of all four could have fit into one 767.
How coincidentally lucky!
Off topic: could it be a lot of people had a bad feeling that morning and changed their plans.
I woke up with an urge to tape the news for example.
How coincidentally lucky!
[Edited 1 times, lastly by shatoga on 12-21-2003] |
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Mon Dec 22, 2003 1:50 am
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shatoga:
Nobody was suggesting the controlled demolition took half an hour.
I think what firefighter was saying that is if WTC6 exploded at 9:04am that would indicate someone triggered those explosives 30 minutes "early."
Of course, I think it was suggested that it was a stray missile that hit WTC6--even though the video and images seem to clearly suggest that the object, if it existed, traveled south to noth and continued on well beyond WTC and did not, in fact, hit WTC6. That the "object" did not impact WTC6 is supported by the conspiracy website at http://www.glennbeck.com/news/06062002.shtml.
And even if it was a stray missile, it is funny that conspiracy theorists would bring it up since that would imply that NORAD had responded and was on the scene by the time of the second impact, they just missed the target. Strange that conspiracy theorists would raise that possibility since most of the conpsiracy usually seems to rest on Bush and NORAD not responding and a missile at WTC6 at 9:04am would seem to kill that aspect of the supposed conspiracy.
quote:
But Now that you suggest it though;
The huge explosion needed to destroy the core at it's base* would be less noticeable if timed to coincide with the impact far above.
Except for the thousands of people that streamed out of the second tower after the impact at 9:03am. You'd think maybe they'd have noticed it, wouldn't you?
quote:
The huge explosion of 1993 didn't bring the building down, Just weakened it at the base. And created a void for upper floors to collapse into. Wow, a debunker just helped fit another piece of the puzzle together!
What kind of a conclusion is that? Are you saying that the 1993 attack weakened the base and created a void--that was never fixed or repaired in 8 years--for the building to conveniently fall into? Is that what conspiracy theories are coming to now?
quote:
When the tower began to fall over, in the direction of greatest damage;
Somebody threw the switch to bring the building straight down in an implosion. To save lives!
Hmm, well if that's the case then those people should be thanked, not condemned as an evil conspiracy. Good planning!
quote:
The photo evidence clearly shows the upper section begins to topple over,
then the core is imploded causing the spire to fall into the void, then charges cut supports on progressively lower floors.
The photo evidence shows the top of the building leaning slightly and then the whole thing coming down. What happened to the core and anything inside the building is speculation. And to think that a 110-story building collapsing is an orderly event that can be predicted with any accuracy is a wild assumption.
quote:
They had explained how critical it is to get all charges placed precisely and detonated in the proper sequence, or the building falls over instead of into itself.
Consider me ignorant: Can you please provide me a reference of any modern building ever "falling over" or "tipping over?" It can be in a controlled demolition or in an uncontrolled fire. Just please provide me with any reference whatsoever to a collapsing building ever tipping over? I've looked, but unfortunately Google is so filled with conspiracy sites I can't find anything not related to 9/11 on that topic.
quote:
Wait until the very last minute.
Until that section of top floors began to topple over the side... Then the last resort installed in 1994 or 1995 perhaps would be executed.
Assuming you are right and that self-destruct charges were installed in 1994 or 1995 to be ready for a worst-case scenario. So what? That would be evidence of good planning that saved thousands of lives, not a conspiracy. In fact, if that were the case then all these supposed charges blowing up would be fully explained and you wouldn't have to blame the Bush administration for having desotryed them on purpose. So what's your point? Are you saying that the Bush administration is innocent but there was a cover-up regarding charges to handle a worst-case scenario?
[Edited 1 times, lastly by letxa2000 on 12-21-2003] |
| |
|
|
the professor
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1164
Location: heartland USA |
|
Mon Dec 22, 2003 1:57 am
|
|
|
Assuming there were self destruct mechanisms in place wouldn't you think they would've warned emergency personal first? if after all it was a measure to save lives with such pre planning (doubt it). |
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:04 am
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by the professor:
Assuming there were self destruct mechanisms in place wouldn't you think they would've warned emergency personal first? if after all it was a measure to save lives with such pre planning (doubt it).
I agree with you, professor. I don't think there were any self-destruct charges in the towers.
I was just pointing out the rediculousness of Shatoga's new theory and how it doesn't make sense when viewed through the eyes of a conspiracist (since the charges would then imply no wrongdoing on the part of the Bush administration) and doesn't make sense to a non-conspiracist either (since, as you said, you'd think the emergency teams would know about the charges). So any way you cut it, Shatoga is just not making sense. 
Or maybe we are just misunderstanding him??
|
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:42 am
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by letxa2000:
I agree with you, professor. I don't think there were any self-destruct charges in the towers.
That statement demonstrates a total lack of understanding of civil defense.
Look up "firebrake" to understand the sacrifice of a few to save the many.
quote:
Originally posted by letxa2000:
I was just pointing out the rediculousness of Shatoga's new theory
It's "your" new theory because it is you who filled in the blank about who and why regards the destruction.
The stereotype of a NY landlord torching his own building to get an insurance payoff,
as the new owner of the WTC got such a payoff, and rescued his overextended aussie conglomerate with that payoff.
quote:
Originally posted by letxa2000:
and how it doesn't make sense when viewed through the eyes of a conspiracist (since the charges would then imply no wrongdoing on the part of the Bush administration)
Your partisanship is showing!
YOU are the conspiracist.
I am merely following the evidence to construct a plausible explanation for proven facts.
quote:
Originally posted by letxa2000:
you'd think the emergency teams would know about the charges).
cute strawman attempt.
IF they knew about the charges they would not have entered the buildings in a rescue attempt.
quote:
Originally posted by letxa2000:
So any way you cut it, Shatoga is just not making sense.
Or maybe we are just misunderstanding him??
You are attempting to use ridicule and innuendo instead of intelliigent discourse.
I forgive it.
You have no basis for that ridiculous bush conspiracy theory.
BUT!:
Lexta2000 comes up with the missing piece!
Like Reverend Moon's "Unification" church.
Here is the Lexta2000 inspired alternate plausible theory:
July 24, 2001;
Frank Lowery's (*rightwing Australian magnate) heavily leveraged Silverstein Properties/ Westfield America agreed to pay $400 million for the lease on the WTC complex.
source: The Jerusalem Post on Sept. 12, 2001
Westfield was insured against terrorist attacks and its earnings will not be materially affected.
In a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange the retail chain said that "investment in the retail component of the World Trade Center is fully insured for both capital and loss of income," adding "the insurance coverage includes acts of terrorism.<
Means Opportunity Motive
MOM: He acquired the property, evicted the tennants, brought in his crew.
Found the building was already wired for a controlled demolition soon after the WTC 1993 bombing evoked fears of the tower falling over onto surrounding blocks.
Already virtually owning the Australian government, he was sympathetic to Bush. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/11/1060588322537.html?from=storyrhs
September 1st 2001 a press release announces that results of the media count of all Florida ballots by the National Opinion Research Center at the University Chicago
is to be released in ten days.
Other news caused them to delay the release for two months.
here is a guy who fervently supports Bush, hears the media count will show Gore won Florida.
He quickly seeks a plan to divert attention away from the count's results.
A building already wired for demolition and lots of debt.
Landlords sometimes torch their buildings to collect insurance money.
Warn a few close friends to not be there in mid September:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/09/AmericanFreePress0902.html
>AFP has learned from a reliable source in the shipping industry that Zim American Israeli Shipping Co., Inc. broke the lease when it vacated the rented offices on the 16th and 17th floors of the north tower of the World Trade Center shortly before the Sept. 11 disaster.
According to the source, Zim's WTC office space had been leased until the end of the year and the company lost $50,000 when it suddenly pulled out in the beginning of September.
AFP repeatedly contacted Zim American Israeli Shipping Co., Inc. at its new American headquarters in Norfolk, Va., to inquire about the company's pulling out of its WTC lease early.
AFP was told that the only person who could discuss the matter was the company president, Shaul Cohen-Mintz, who was said to be unavailable until Dec. 4.
AFP also contacted the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the original owner of the World Trade Center, and was told to contact Silverstein Properties, owner of the World Trade Center since July 24.<
|
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:47 am
|
|
|
OK!
You are a fanatic rightwing partisan who believes the end justifies the means.
Now the end is to rescue your failing enterprise and divert attention from the count of all Florida ballots that would show Bush lost the elcetion and is not legitimately President...
You have only ten days...
It was Arab terrorists who bombed the WTC in 1993, but how to set it up in only ten days?
The CIA is a partisan rightwing organization thanks to the ethnic outreach efforts to bring former Nazis over to help fight communism.
George HW Bush had been CIA ever since the end of WWII and had been Director of the CIA under Ford.
Pentagon contacts brought out Operation Northwoods:
"We've has this plan on the backburner since Johnson used if for the "Gulf of Tonkin" fake attack.
Project Mongoose Appendix A calls for bombings and airplane hijackings by the US Military, to be blamed on another country
as a pretext for an invasion. http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/bamford.htm http://www.attackonamerica.net/operationnorthwoods.htm
(I have the book the NSA authorized bamford to write)
Somebody had watched the pilot episode of "the Lone Gunman" in which the DOD used remote control to take over a jumbo jet and fly it into the WYC.
Perfect.
thank God for fans who archive information excised from official records: http://www.insidethex.co.uk/transcrp/tlg179.htm
>BYERS: Find something?
KIMMY: Yep. I wound up in some government think-tank's upload directory. Here's your scenarios, ladies.
BYERS: It's in clear. Counter-terrorism scenarios. War games developed for the Defence Department.
FROHIKE: What's Scenario 12-D?
(Kimmy clicks on the file. A dialog box on the screen opens.)
FILE INFO
scenario_12D.txt
Domestic Airline In-Flight Terrorist Act
LANGLY: Airline terrorism? That doesn't make sense. Your father was murdered over a war game?
BYERS: Download it.
(Kimmy taps away. The screen shows
DOWNLOAD:
RETRIEVING: uploads/scenarios/scenario_12D.txt <
>BYERS: What is scenario 12-D?
(BYERS SNR doesn't respond.)
BYERS: We know it's a war game scenario. That it has to do with airline counter-terrorism. Why is it important enough to kill for.
BYERS SNR: Because it's no longer a game.
BYERS: But if some terrorist group wants to act out this scenario, then why target you for assassination?
BYERS SNR: Depends on who your terrorists are.
BYERS: The men who conceived of it the first place. You're saying our government is planning to commit a terrorist act against a domestic airline?
BYERS SNR: There you go again. Blaming the entire government as usual. In fact, a small faction ...
BYERS: For what possible gain?
BYERS SNR: The Cold War's over, John. But with no clear enemy to stockpile against, the arms market's flat. But bring down a fully loaded 727 into the middle of New York City and you'll find a dozen tinpot dictators all over the world just clamouring to take responsibility, and begging to be smart-bombed.
BYERS: I can't believe this. This is about increasing arms sales?
(BYERS SNR nods.) <
>SCENE 14
(Airport terminal. An tannoy is announcing departing flights. A monitor is displaying flight details.)
Flight 265
Boston
Departs 6:50 PM
Gate 34. <
>LANGLY (VO): I've hacked into the flight control system output.
CUT BACK TO:
(LANGLY and FROHIKE are in front of their computer. They are running some systems monitoring software.)
FROHIKE: With a little bit of help.
LANGLY: It's what the brains of the plane is telling the little black box.
FROHIKE: Course, heading, attitude, hold, yaw, axis, stabilisation (pauses) what? (points at screen) what the heck's that?
LANGLY: Is that what it looks like?
FROHIKE: I think it is what it looks like.
CUT TO:
(On the plane with BYERS.)
BYERS: What does "what" look like?
LANGLY: Modem protocol. Remote access. Somebody on the ground's flying your plane.
CUT TO:
(DOD monitoring station. The DOD operator we saw earlier is monitoring the Lone Gunmen's progress. Helm is with him.)
DOD OPERATOR: Bogey, sir.
HELM: Keep your course.
CUT BACK TO:
(Onboard the aircraft.)
BYERS: We need to know our flightplan.
CUT BACK TO:
(LANGLY and FROHIKE are checking the flight data.)
FROHIKE: I'm mapping the data now.
(The monitor changes to show a map. The map increases in detail and a line showing the flightplan is superimposed on it. The line stops at a point on the map and the target building is highlighted. FROHIKE and LANGLY look at each other.)
LANGLY: Byers. Your flight's going to make an unscheduled stop. In exactly 22 minutes.
(Cut to FROHIKE and LANGLY.)
FROHIKE: Corner of Liberty and Washington, Lower Manhattan.
CUT TO:
(Onboard the aircraft. BYERS and BYERS SNR are trying to keep their voices low.)
BYERS: World Trade Center. (He turns to his father) They're going to crash it into the World Trade Center. < http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/09/145289_comment.php#145399
>Missive From A Lone Gunman
The following letter appeared in the December 2002 edition (#165) of Fortean Times < http://www.forteantimes.com
>, the self-titled "Journal of Strange Phenomena", a publication I've always thought of as closely related to the less mainstream and altogether more underground publication of the Gunmen. Whilst the facts are well-documented, the author is noteworthy and the concluding lamentation is particularly poignant for this UK fan where the series has happily been aired, but minus the pilot:
Having just finished your article on 9/11 conspiracy theories http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/000_2002index.shtml
>, I thought I'd share with you my own peculiar relationship between the conspiracies and the events. I was one of the lead actors on a short-lived television series that aired on the Fox network in the United States. It was called The Lone Gunmen and intended as a spin-off from the popular Fox series The X-Files. The so-called Lone Gunmen are three conspiracy geeks who publish an underground newspaper named The Lone Gunman (hence our show title).
Although our series aired in the spring of 2001, we had shot the pilot episode in March 2000. The plot was fairly simple: the Lone Gunmen uncover and defeat a government conspiracy to fly a commercial jet plane into one of the towers of the World Trade Center via ground-based computer control of the jet's auto-pilot. The intention was to blame a foreign, 'terrorist' nation for the bombing, and thus encourage the US to enter into a war against it - all to guarantee weapons sales for the US military-industrial complex. In the TV episode, of course, our characters save the day in the nick of time, regaining control of the plane just as it soars over the towers.
We shot 12 more episodes over the winter of 2000-2001, and they all aired on Fox that spring, but in the end our series was not renewed for a second season. I continued to work on The X-Files, and I was in Los Angeles on 11 September, having just finished working on an episode of that show. I was supposed to fly home to Canada that very day. I was woken about 8:30 by a phone call from the limo company contracted to drive me to Los Angeles Airport (LAX). "This is your limo driver," the voice told me. "You won't be flying home today."
"Why not," I asked, groggy from sleep.
"All the airports in the US have been shut down."
It took a moment or two to process this statement. I could believe that LAX had been closed for some reason. But all the airports? In the whole country? "What? Why?"
"Some one has flown a plane into the World Trade Center."
They say that most people thought it was a joke when they first heard of the attack. You can understand why that was my first thought. Luckily I was too sleepy to laugh out loud. (Actually, I thought it was a pretty poor joke.) I can only add that once I learned the truth, I experienced an eerie terror, as if I had seen the future, and not understood it until it was too late.
Assuming the idea for flying a plane into the Twin Towers by the remote control of a secret government agency was original to our writers, it had been floating around for a year and a half at least before the actual attack. Not a lot of viewers saw our show (several million maybe saw the pilot), but I have no doubt that the idea - or cultural 'meme' - was immediately available once the shock of the attack wore off.
Of course, it also means that the idea of terrorists flying a jet into a New York landmark was not so unthinkable as it seemed in the days afterwards. As far as news items being 'scrubbed,' I think it's safe to say that our pilot, if not our entire series, will never be seen on network television anywhere. Ever. A strange, awful confluence of pulp culture and reality...
BRUCE HARWOOD
aka 'Byers' of the Lone Gunmen, Fox Broadcasting, Los Angeles <
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm
a Plausible scenario.
so combine rightwingers worried about bush's Presidency needing a Wag-the-Dog war to boost him into polularity.
worried about the vote count that would likely show bush lost.
a ealthy landlord willing to commit insurance fraud to amortize his debts.
a military willing to fake an attack on America as a pretext for war.
ADD either hijackers for remote control and crash airplanes in a high profile distraction/ peral harbor like "unite behind our President and march off to war" event.
Stir in buildings wired for demolition and add bombs like used in 1993.
combine extremism greed and end justifies the means pragmatism.
viola Means motive opportunity.
And the slap dash speed of preparations made everything obvious to sceptics.
Bandage holes in the scenario with pronouncements by leladership and in house (in the pocket) experts.
You have america's Reichstag Fire.
And the most successfull part of the Operation northwoods fraud?
The carefully placed explosives worked perfectly thanks to the world's best explosive demolitions company,
Controlled Demolition Inc.
|
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:04 am
|
|
|
quote:
Shatoga said:
That statement demonstrates a total lack of understanding of civil defense. Look up "firebrake" to understand the sacrifice of a few to save the many.
I understand the concept, I just don't see any evidence that it occurred. And I believe the firemen racing into the WTC towers would be aware if there was a risk of some fail-safe being detonated and bringing down the towers.
quote:
Your partisanship is showing! YOU are the conspiracist. I am merely following the evidence to construct a plausible explanation for proven facts.
May I ask you what is not plausible about a number of Muslim terrorists--who have been blowing themselves up in Israel for years--finally targetting the only country that guarantees that Israel, their motal enemy, will continue to exist?
quote:
IF they knew about the charges they would not have entered the buildings in a rescue attempt.
EXACTLY! So you're suggesting the firemen would be unaware of a common civil defense technique implemented in the towers after 1993? That's silly. If there was such a fail-safe in the towers local emergency folk would know. They'd probably be the ones to operate such a fail-safe when they deemed collapse was inevitable. The fact that they raced into the structure tells me they didn't know it existed which, in anything but a dark twisted conspiracy theory, would suggest that the fail-safe charges did NOT exist.
quote:
Means Opportunity Motive
Means Opportunity Motive does not equal a conviction unless evidence supports it, and everything you are stating is speculation and circumstantial. It is not evidence of wrongdoing or proof of your theory.
Other than that, please forgive me while I ignore your discourse on fictional television material as being irrelevant to the debate.
|
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Mon Dec 22, 2003 5:03 pm
|
|
|
Shatoga:
Just like I told BoomerChick, you have the patience of a Saint! Why debate with someone who is trying to come off as level-headed and intelligent and can’t even put up a good defense? Wolf Larson was at least a worthy opponent. You’re wasting your time with someone that visits “conspiracy” boards to debate an event that was emotional and personal for many. Sounds like such a FUN thing to do – don’t you think?
I wonder how many times he’s used the term conspiracy theory? Probably more than he’s posted! 
|
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:03 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by the professor:
So because one person heard something we are all suppose to believe another theory?
Quoted to remind "aFirefighter" and 'wolf' that that was a NYC Fireman being quoted.
quote:
Originally posted by the professor:
I will admit my curiousity on bldg 7 but am not sold on the twins.
Like many others.
I heard bldg 7 so many times i thought bldg6's improbable involvement was about a bldg 7.
I was mistaken.
Somebody's fingers must'of hit the wrong key.
quote:
Originally posted by Mech:
You are conditioned by the NWO to think a certain way.
Taking that as a 'generic' "you",
directed at nobody inparticular,
but directed at everyone being manipulated by the subtle propaganda of the US media.
It is not a personal attack.
Just a comment by someone who woke up,
and learned to disbelieve all sides equally.
Anyone, on any side, who takes their own side's statements as unquestioned fact (and believes everyone else is lying) is severely mistaken.
|
| |
|
|
Lies..all lies
Joined: 18 Dec 2003
Posts: 18
Location: Truth county |
|
Thu Dec 25, 2003 4:24 am
|
|
|
Your gone.
(Edited by Mech)
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 03-18-2004] |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Thu Dec 25, 2003 3:12 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Origionally posted by letxa2000:
Other than that, please forgive me while I ignore your discourse on fictional television material as being irrelevant to the debate.[B]
Presenting the fictional show that might have given your "Arab conspirators" the idea in the first place irrelevant?
You should go ask a police detective if he ever heard of a criminal getting ideas from TV.
"Mission Impossible" spawned numerous burgularies, as criminals tried to emulate fiction.
Ignoring reality and using the (Team Leader's) "talking points" techniques again, gives that appearance of being a propagandist.
The cover-up is the conspiracy.
[QUOTE] Origionally posted by letxa2000:
[B]And even if it was a stray missile, it is funny that conspiracy theorists would bring it up since that would imply that NORAD had responded and was on the scene by the time of the second impact, they just missed the target. Strange that conspiracy theorists would raise that possibility since most of the conpsiracy usually seems to rest on Bush and NORAD not responding and a missile at WTC6 at 9:04am would seem to kill that aspect of the supposed conspiracy.
Many of us had hoped the Drudge object would prove to be a military shootdown attempt to disprove the military standown.
"Conspiracy theorists" are the ones arguing in favor of the Bush "Arab Conspiracy".
We others are seeking to examine all evidence and construct a plausible explanation that leads to the truth.
On to lexta2000's point/counterpoint:
quote origionally posted by (me) shatoga:
But Now that you suggest it though;
The huge explosion needed to destroy the core at it's base* would be less noticeable if timed to coincide with the impact far above. /end quote
[QUOTE] Origionally posted by letxa2000:
Except for the thousands of people that streamed out of the second tower after the impact at 9:03am. You'd think maybe they'd have noticed it, wouldn't you?
If you'll go back to the quotes from Building Engineer Magazine.
They spoke of explosions in the BASEMENT AND SUB BASEMENT,
NOT AT GROUND LEVEL!
Real Life Engineers test their theories with experiments.
(that's called "science/ BTW)
Walk into a high rise, take elevators to upper floors' return to the street.
At what time did you notice the machinery humming loudly in the basement and sub basements?
(transformers, generators, pumps, maintainance machine shop's machine tools)
Extrapolate, the building having been struck by an airplane with attendant fires and panic.
How many fleeing survivors would descend into the basement and sub basement?
How many fleeing survivors would just get the hell out?
Consider the testimony already quoted of the Building Engineer who did descend into the second tower's basement and sub basement.
He saw and heard events similar to the WTC explosion of 1993.
Proven in court to have been a terrorist bomb.
lexta2000's point/counterpoint:
quote origionally posted by (me) shatoga:
The huge explosion of 1993 didn't bring the building down, Just weakened it at the base. And created a void for upper floors to collapse into. Wow, a debunker just helped fit another piece of the puzzle together! /end quote
quote:
Origionally posted by letxa2000:
What kind of a conclusion is that? Are you saying that the 1993 attack weakened the base and created a void--that was never fixed or repaired in 8 years--for the building to conveniently fall into? Is that what conspiracy theories are coming to now?
A conclusion based on the evidence! (is what kind)
Strawman diversion failed again!
I had overestimated your intelligence lexta2000.
My apology.
===================================================================================
For those who assume illogical concepts, such as lesta's assumption that the 1993 WTC damage would go unrepaired for 8yrs:
People with more orderly thought processes may disregard.
lexta2000, et al,
Commercial structures require a "Certificate of Occupancy" before they may be lived in or used for any other purpose other than construction.
After a fire or other major building damage.
Repairs must be verified by experts recognized by "License and Inspection" (by whatever name)
I have personally pulled (suspended) the Certificate of Occupancy of structures because they were deemed by me a fire hazard, or structurally unsound.
(In my case it was in conjunction with fire inspection, construction, or after fire damage assessment)
It is inconceivable that the 1993 WTC bombing damage could have not been repaired, unless the building had been abandoned and demolished.
It is logical and rational that, after the 1993 WTC explosion,
experts would have advised "L& I" and Civil Defense, etc. that the intention of the terrorists in 1993 was to cause the building to collapse.
Such was proven in court.
Go back and reread my previous post and this time, lexta2000, read the whole post.
The argument for contingency planning, including pre-placed demolition charges is already posted.
=====================================================================
lexta2000's point/counterpoint:
quote (me):
They had explained how critical it is to get all charges placed precisely and detonated in the proper sequence, or the building falls over instead of into itself. end quote
quote:
Origionally posted by letxa2000:
Consider me ignorant: Can you please provide me a reference of any modern building ever "falling over" or "tipping over?" It can be in a controlled demolition or in an uncontrolled fire. Just please provide me with any reference whatsoever to a collapsing building ever tipping over? I've looked, but unfortunately Google is so filled with conspiracy sites I can't find anything not related to 9/11 on that topic.
There is much evidence of building collapses on the internet and in library archives.
That you use the strawman insistence that it be specifically labeled "building falling over" is a (Team Leader)"talking points" technique to disinform
instead of discuss.
Deliberately ignorant! (on this topic at least)
Careful. that seems awfully like propagandising again. http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/TalkingPoints/default.htm
lexta2000's point/counterpoint:
quote (me):
Wait until the very last minute.
Until that section of top floors began to topple over the side... Then the last resort installed in 1994 or 1995 perhaps would be executed. end quote
quote:
Origionally posted by letxa2000:
Assuming you are right and that self-destruct charges were installed in 1994 or 1995 to be ready for a worst-case scenario. So what? That would be evidence of good planning that saved thousands of lives, not a conspiracy.
Such a shame you fail to read entire posts.
That is my point, previously posted:
It could have been just another NY landlord turning losses into profits, with your lord Bush blissfully unaware.
(or just too busy running and hiding to pay attention)
quote:
Origionally posted by letxa2000:
In fact, if that were the case then all these supposed charges blowing up would be fully explained and you wouldn't have to blame the Bush administration for having desotryed them on purpose.
ok then.
Blame Clinton!
Then could you take a rational look at the evidence without that knee-jerk counterattack to protect Bush?
quote:
Origionally posted by letxa2000:
So what's your point? Are you saying that the Bush administration is innocent but there was a cover-up regarding charges to handle a worst-case scenario?
THE COVER-UP IS THE CONSPIRACY!
|
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 10:25 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
