posted 12-22-2003 10:03 AM            

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!

posted 12-24-2003 08:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by the professor:
So because one person heard something we are all suppose to believe another theory?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the professor:
I will admit my curiousity on bldg 7 but am not sold on the twins.

---

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.

posted 12-25-2003 08:12 AM            

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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!

posted 12-25-2003 08:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JerseyBluEyz:
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!

---

I'm not even considering the possibility of convincing any neo-cons.

They and the PRopagandists serve as foils
to keep the audience amused while the truth is paraded past over and over-
-until a few non partisan readers decide to examine the evidence for themselves.

Every comedy team needs both a straightman and a buffoon.

Visitors, sitting at my computer and reading here, break out laughing almost immediately.

lexta2000's concept of the WTC never having been repaired after the 1993 bombing alone,
has been worth dozens of grins and giggles already.

I don't care if they're paid PRopagandists or just deluded neo-cons.

Debating wouldn't be as much fun without them.

From whence doth debunkers spring anew? http://www.bivings.com/news/gopteamleader.html

posted 12-25-2003 12:39 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.

[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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

posted 12-25-2003 01:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lies..all lies:
This topic is nothing but beating a dead horse.
(love Bush hate truth/yadda/love Bush hate truth/yadda, and so on)

---

posted 12-26-2003 08:49 AM            

Americans should not rest until they can know within reasonable certainty that there are not high level criminals WITHIN the U.S. government. If elements of this administration or those with ties allowed 9/11 to happen or aided or provoked it, then it is possible they may strike again.

I am always amazed by the apparent naive nature of "coincidence theorists", that seem to readily believe that murder and conspiracy can happen at the street level for mere dollars, but not at the State level when Billions of dollars are involved.
While they may also eventually concede that 'conspiracies' happen in OTHER governments and maybe even have happened in the PAST by our own U.S. government, somehow conspiracies can NEVER happen in a current administration. This in my opinion is very short sighted and dangerous.

I have seen absolutely ZERO amounts of hard PROOF that bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11, however I fully realize he MAY have. But Equally possible is that those who worked for years to try and get the oil pipeline through Afghanistan and were thwarted only months before 9/11, could have played a part. This in fact to me seems to be a much more likely scenario than the 'bin Laden' conspiracy theory where he acts only because he 'hates our freedom".

It is still entirely possible also that 'bin Laden' is STILL on the CIA payroll. The pipleline(s) are said to be going to benefit BOTH the bin Ladens and Bush's oil cronies. Shouldn't that raise just a little red flag.

A common response to the many many people raising the DOZENS of anamolies and "coincidences" dealing with 9/11 I have witnessed is simply this naive notion "THEY just wouldn't do that". Once again IMO history bears out THEY WILL do that. And as often as they can get away with it.

posted 12-28-2003 12:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
But the fire was localized and the heat from the jet fuel burned off immediately. The rest was office equipment and other substances which again, even if they could melt the jumctions, were only localized on a couple of floors.

---

If that's the case, what prompted hundreds of people to jump to their deaths rather than escape this typical, localized office fire that was burning office equipment and substances? People were jumping from many, many floors above the impact points--not just the floors immediately around the impact.

I think the jumpers are one of the most convincing aspects of the official "heat damage" theory. It's all fine and good for conspiracists to speculate about how quickly the fuel would have been used up or how hot or cold the fire would burn and for how long. None of us were there so it's just speculation on either side.

But when we have as many as 200 people preferring to jump out the building to certain death that suggests to me that the fire was very hot and widespread.

posted 03-18-2004 06:05 PM            

THis might prove that it was a contorlled demolition it might not...but the NYFD released their tapes from that day after the Government failed to do so. On it you hear the firefighters say we have multiple bomb explosions going off up here..seconds before the first tower fell.

posted 03-23-2004 12:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
This is quite old in the thread, but...

If that's the case, what prompted hundreds of people to jump to their deaths rather than escape this typical, localized office fire that was burning office equipment and substances? People were jumping from many, many floors above the impact points--not just the floors immediately around the impact.

I think the jumpers are one of the most convincing aspects of the official "heat damage" theory. It's all fine and good for conspiracists to speculate about how quickly the fuel would have been used up or how hot or cold the fire would burn and for how long. None of us were there so it's just speculation on either side.

But when we have as many as 200 people preferring to jump out the building to certain death that suggests to me that the fire was very hot and widespread.

Or were those 200 jumpers in on the conspiracy, too, and jumped so people would buy the official line?

---

So old a saying, but still quite true:
"Heat rises!"

In a burning building, damage is rare below the fire, but common on floors above the fire.

People quoted in this topic mentioned difficulty breathing because of the heat and smoke from lower floors.

People often choose a quick death by jumping rather than burning alive.

What makes the WTC unique

is that undamaged lower floors collapsed
symmetrically, and sequentially despite localized upper floor damage being greater on one side.

Symmetrical and sequential collapses had only occurred in explosive demolitions.

Specifically, referring to the explosive demolitions done by the world's leading company (in that field)
Controlled Demolition Inc.

Note that CDI was the contractor who carted off the debris before any fire inspectors or police could examine them in place.

Same contractor at OK City, where newsies had reported and photographed unexploded ordinance being removed from the building.

Anyone considering how to prevent terrorists damage or contemplating civil defense worst case demolition would logically contact the worlds' leading experts.

CDI