911 and world trade center 7: the best magic trick/con ever?

W

White-Wolf

CAGiversary!
I will get flamed for this post, i know it, I just hope I make some kind of difference, i also hope I don’t get banned. This is in the Politics & and Controversy and I think this topic is one of the most important in America at the moment, and its not being said in the main stream. I bet most Americans don’t even know what wtc 7 is, or what its relation to the two towers are.

http://www.myspace.com/wtc_7

Please follow this link, read, watch the videos and listen to the sound clips. Then come back here and post. This is the most comprehensive documentation I have found. It’s very informative with lots of visual evidence.

Do you think it’s true what this website says? Yes? No?

if yes, then what can be done? How can we show those in power that we want the truth to be public?

if no? How is the info wrong? What’s your evidence? Is it your feelings that tell you its wrong? Where is the origins of your truth and beliefs that it is not true? can you provide a counter argument with data and facts? Please no popular mechanics BS... it really avoids the argument and doesn’t address the issue. But if someone can post the issue, we will see its bs.

How can we be so sure we know what happened when their was no investigation? Sure planes hit the two towers, but did the fall because of this? Does it seem ood that they fell like in a movie? Wouldn’t it topple from the midsection if it was unstable? if one floor hits another and another creating a cascade, why did the floors free fall? Really look at the website and think about it. Look at it with an open mind. That is all I ask.

Decent is the strongest and most powerful way to show patriotism. Its tough love.

Thanks.
 
[quote name='Quillion']In America, Dissent can certainly be patriotic; however, only if the dissent is decent intelligent.[/quote]Fixed.
 
I will say here what I said in a very similar topic:

I am consistently amazed by the public's inability to accept the most simple and logical explanation for an event. The Kennedy assassination. Oklahoma City. 9/11.

Folks, it really isn't that complicated. Sometimes bad people do bad things. Those bad things can result in bad consequences for other folks. Good people are killed. Buildings fall. Things are destroyed.

There is not always a more sinister force at work. In fact, there rarely is. Some people need to believe that 19 terrorists couldn't have brought down two gigantic buildings. Guess what? They did. No explosives were in the buildings. The Government didn't fire any missiles. The Mossad didn't tip off the Israelis working in the Towers. Thugs flew two planes into the buildings, the buildings were never designed to withstand such an intense explosion and resulting fire. It really is that simple.

For those who still can't accept it, I suggest you check out the following book: Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time.
 
Ok so my spelling isn’t grat, but that doesn’t make the argument any less invalid. Attacking spelling is the last refuge of a lost argument in my opinion.

so i will summarize what this website says for those who cant view it.

It doesn’t say its the government. Who knows who it was but the facts show that the two towers did not fall by the planes that hit it?

The towers are made of steel. Never in history, until 911 has any steel frame building fallen down because of hot fires. In fact the buildings were made to withstand planes around the size that hit it.

Before the towers fell, loud explosions were herd. This was after the planes hit. Moments later the towers fell at a free fall. The idea that each floor smashed into each other conflicts with data that shows that the floors never fell on top of each other, that they free fell and slid under the earth exactly like a demo'ed building.

cant people just click on the link? It has more documentation then any conspiracy site. Conspiracies really on ideas, but this website backs up everything is says with photographic evidence, video and interviews by people that were their. How many people actually saw the towers fall? not on tv, i mean really saw it? Most people that did and were close to them, don’t buy the shit the government says. Normally i would think that the government would never do this, but seeing it in action these past 6 years has made me really think.

wtc7 wasn’t hit by a plane. It had minor fires on the bottom floor yet it sank unto the ground. wtc7 is the smoking gun. How the fuck did that building fall? Why does it have a demo kink/fault line exactly like a demoed building? how come we don’t actually see the fires. If the two towers and wtc7 fell under fire wouldn’t it look like this?




310954.jpg


This building stood. IT wasn’t made as well has the wtc. Kind of strange yeah?

I think we have been brainwashed by movies. We accept a demoed building as how buildings fall. The truth is, the story that was told, and the video that went along side that story do not mix well. in my mind. I’m not saying the government blew up the buildings, but it wasn’t because of planes.

If it was indeed the government, If they silenced people then more people would believe their story was bs. By just ignoring anything about it, and making anyone that talks about it seem like a conspiracy theorists, that’s enough to keep the truth from people. Look how many people so far just disregard my first post without even really looking at the link. They see it as bs before its even properly presented. History now tells us that pearl harbor happed because the government didn’t worn pearl harbor. The let it happen through inaction to get it us into world war 2. That helped the economy ect… is it so hard to see that bush would think he could attack Iraq and show it in the light that world war 2 was shown. That people would embrace the war and boost the economy?

I don’t fully know the who or why, but I do know with out and doubt that planes dident take down the wtc and itty bitty fires didn’t take down wtc7.

http://www.myspace.com/wtc_7

[quote name='sgs89']I will say here what I said in a very similar topic:

I am consistently amazed by the public's inability to accept the most simple and logical explanation for an event. The Kennedy assassination. Oklahoma City. 9/11.

Folks, it really isn't that complicated. Sometimes bad people do bad things. Those bad things can result in bad consequences for other folks. Good people are killed. Buildings fall. Things are destroyed.

There is not always a more sinister force at work. In fact, there rarely is. Some people need to believe that 19 terrorists couldn't have brought down two gigantic buildings. Guess what? They did. No explosives were in the buildings. The Government didn't fire any missiles. The Mossad didn't tip off the Israelis working in the Towers. Thugs flew two planes into the buildings, the buildings were never designed to withstand such an intense explosion and resulting fire. It really is that simple.

For those who still can't accept it, I suggest you check out the following book: Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time.[/quote]

really, the creator of the wtc said they could withstand very large planes... strange...

i present facts, interviews ect. that are contrary to your case. You present an opinion. please list your sources and facts. The truth is the facts point in the other direction. you have been played the fool.



also you will not find facts to support your case because their are none. Not that my facts are wrong, but their has been no investigation to prove that did fall by plane. All thier are is statements by the government, but no real investigation or facts to back of these statements. The picture above is what the wtc should have looked like before it fell. How can a steel frame building fall under fire? The temp wasn’t hot enough to melt the fame, even so, it has a inner spider web frame that wasent even scratched as the planes did not directly hit the building but insted its conners. The inner fame was not hit by a plane. The only report that trys to debunk the overwhelming evidence is poplular mechanics and they don’t argue on a straight front. They use a back door argument because the evidence is too overwhelming and convincing.
 
Before the towers fell, loud explosions were herd.
Click to expand...
Think about it for a second, chief. The flights jacked were for cross country flights. That means they were filled with gas. Lots and lots of gas. Gas was going down the elevator shaft, spreading to multiple floors.

What happens when you combine fire and gas?

There you go. There's your explanation on multiple explosions on multiple floors. As sgs said, bad things happen by bad people. This is one of them. The conspiracy theories need to stop.
 
[quote name='White-Wolf']I think we have been brainwashed by movies.[/QUOTE]
I think we have been brainwashed by movies into believing unbelievable conspiracy theories.

Go watch The Matrix, as opposed to posting this shit.
 
Good Lord, son, you are hopelessly confused and ignorant. And normally spelling errors would not be a big issue, but in this case they play so well into the notion that you really are an ignorant conspiracy theorist who is uneducated enough that you would believe these things (and can't spell, to boot).

Where to begin? Let's see -- for one, you present the notion that our government "knew" about Pearl Harbor before it happened as fact. That is not fact -- in reality, almost all credible historians disagree with you. There is no credible evidence that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance. If he did, he sure was an idiot to leave the bulk of the Pacific fleet in the harbor to be destroyed. Don't you think he would have pulled most of it out so that there would be enough outrage that we would enter the war but not so much damage that our Pacific fleet would be seriously weakened (which is what happened)? The fact that you would present this as evidence that the government is involved in conspiracies just shows how idiotic your belief that 9/11 was a conspiracy really is.

Second, the WTC was NOT built to withstand a direct hit by two jumbo jets flying at high rates of speed with full tanks of jet fuel. Period. You present no evidence that they were and it is well known that they were not.

Third, virtually every expert who has looked at this issue (aside from a few on the far fringes of the debate) have concluded that the towers and the surrounding buildings were destroyed exactly how they appeared to be -- namely, as a result of the planes and falling debris. Are they all part of the conspiracy, too? They must be. Wow, this is a large conspiracy, isn't it?

Fourth, the "facts" that I rely on are on TV -- we SAW the planes hit the buildings. It doesn't take a genius to realize that that was a VERY destructive event, certainly destructive enough to bring down many buildings. Your "facts" are mere speculation, innuendo, and reliance on nut cases who have nothing better to do than lob conspiracy grenades. Again, I urge you to read Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. That book should give you some insight into why you believe in bizarre -- truly outrageous -- conspiracy theories.
 
I'm still waiting for an explanation why the Popular Mechanics link I posted in the other thread (the one where you got slammed just like this one) isn't valid, but a wonky myspace one is.

Think about it. In fact, just think, it would be an improvement.

I bet you believe we didn't land on the moon, either.
 
The problem with the Twin Towers bombing is that people still don't know what happen in those planes and how it would have affected people today. I can imagine wives, husbands, children of all ages, and loved ones crying there eyes out.

I myself wonder what life would have been like. To be honest my world went for broke before summer when I got a scar on my face for a stupid reason. I think to myself if the devil or some horrific forced possessed me that day also.

Again how come nobody fought back. You have to be that dumb to not fight back when the plane is being held hostage. Now taking the plane is crazy with all the ID checks and Passport this and that. It is so bad at the Airport a person wife gets felt up with the metal detector stick when they are wearing next to nothing.

USA stinks people. You can't even drive across the country Naked anymore or go back and forth into Canada. The way I see it USA is more desert Land then forest.
 
There is more evidence backing up that Arabs did the whole thing. Conspiracy theorists just pick out small things from the events of 9/11, and try to base their whole argument around them.
 
[quote name='White-Wolf']
The towers are made of steel. Never in history, until 911 has any steel frame building fallen down because of hot fires. In fact the buildings were made to withstand planes around the size that hit it.
[/QUOTE]

Ok junior let's have a little chit chat about this paragraph. Everyone else has picked where you're wrong so I'm choosing this one to show where you're wrong. First of all, when the world trade center they didn't have the large planes that we have today. While the 767s that crashed into the towers aren't as big as a DC-10 or a 747, they're still a lot bigger than the planes that were around 30 years ago when the WTC was built.

Now, as far as steel buildings not collapsing due to fire. Other building have the advantage of not being hit by 300,000 lbs at 500 mph. You don't need to be a physicist to understand that that is a hell of a lot of fucking force. That force was enough to not only slice right through steel support columns but to also knock the asbestos off of the remaining support columns. After the plane hit the load transfered to the supports that remained HOWEVER as the fire continued to burn it weakened the steel in those remaining supports thus making it much more pliable (that means bendy). Eventually those supports had bent too far to be able to hold any type of substantial load and well the rest is history.
 
I’m not denying that the molten lava story, and looking at some video, the first building does seem to have fallen because of a plane. Anyone have a good video of the second one falling? I seem to remember it was the one that was more debus. Wtc7 though is still a really really strange case. It just sunk underneath the earth and it had a major fault line and looks a lot like a demoed building.

I’m not a flame starter, I would appreciate it if people would not flame me (but i guess i knew it would happen), This is an important thread and posting this snark shit is not cool.

Thanks for the link Ugamer_X, gave me a lot to think about.

Btw if you have a beef with my argument fine, but don’t trash my spelling or gramer, that just gets me pissy.

How would you feel if you try to make an argument and I trash your grammar? I bet if I followed any of your posts I could find a mistake here or their. If You go to a learning specialist and he says you’re an enigma, then gives you an iq test that’s almost off the charts, along with reading comprehension, but you suck at spelling, what would you make of it?
 
The two main WTC buildings should have been able to withstand the impact of the planes and should not have fallen. 767s are marginally larger than those planes which were around when the twin towers were being built, so size of the aircraft isn't an issue. It seems apparent that the fuel quickly burned up, as evidenced by the color of the smoke emanating from the buildings. Therefore, there would have been no raging fire that could have sustained itself long enough to weaken the the structure to the point of collapse and near disintegration.

In regards to WTC7, the official story is bullshit. A few fires resulting from fallen debris would not lead to the total, symmetrical collapse of the building.
 
[quote name='onikage']The two main WTC buildings should have been able to withstand the impact of the planes and should not have fallen. 767s are marginally larger than those planes which were around when the twin towers were being built, so size of the aircraft isn't an issue. It seems apparent that the fuel quickly burned up, as evidenced by the color of the smoke emanating from the buildings. Therefore, there would have been no raging fire that could have sustained itself long enough to weaken the the structure to the point of collapse and near disintegration.

In regards to WTC7, the official story is bullshit. A few fires resulting from fallen debris would not lead to the total, symmetrical collapse of the building.[/QUOTE]

Marginally larger?!?!

Boeing 707 (most popular plane when the WTC was built in early 70s) could carry 100 passengers. The Boeing 767s that hit the WTC could hold upwards of 200 passengers. Not to mention that it had a higher fuel capacity for longer flights (remember the flights that they chose to highjack were transcontinental flights for a reason, they had nearly full fuel tanks).

Once the jet fuel had burned off, it had lit fire to EVERYTHING in the building. Drapes, paper, furniture, everything was burning. Not only that but the jet fuel would have taken a while to burn off as well. Jet fuel (and your car's gasoline) don't burn as liquids. Its their vapor that ignites. A pool of gas or jet fuel will burn for quite a while.
 
[quote name='onikage']The two main WTC buildings should have been able to withstand the impact of the planes and should not have fallen. 767s are marginally larger than those planes which were around when the twin towers were being built, so size of the aircraft isn't an issue. It seems apparent that the fuel quickly burned up, as evidenced by the color of the smoke emanating from the buildings. Therefore, there would have been no raging fire that could have sustained itself long enough to weaken the the structure to the point of collapse and near disintegration.

In regards to WTC7, the official story is bullshit. A few fires resulting from fallen debris would not lead to the total, symmetrical collapse of the building.[/QUOTE]

There is pretty much nothing that can be said in response to this garbage, other than that you are wrong. So very wrong. The WTC was NOT intended to survive the direct impact of a jumbo jet with a full tank of fuel flying at an extremely high rate of speed.

Why do small minds always have to believe there is something more insidious behind everything? I guess it is a form of mental masturbation.
 
A 767 may hold many more passengers, but the actual weight of the plane is only about 120% that of a 707. The amount of fuel on-board would have been far less than what the buildings were designed to be able to handle, assuming they were designed to absorb the impact of a loaded 707, which they supposedly were.

[quote name='sgs89']There is pretty much nothing that can be said in response to this garbage, other than that you are wrong. So very wrong. The WTC was NOT intended to survive the direct impact of a jumbo jet with a full tank of fuel flying at an extremely high rate of speed.

Why do small minds always have to believe there is something more insidious behind everything? I guess it is a form of mental masturbation.[/quote]

The building was designed to withstand such an impact, you are wrong. And I assume you believe the official story of events concerning building 7?
 
[quote name='onikage']
The building was designed to withstand such an impact, you are wrong. And I assume you believe the official story of events concerning building 7?[/QUOTE]

The building DID withstand the impact -- it didn't immediately fall -- but the point is that the building was not designed to survive indefinitely the massive impact combined with the unbelievably hot fire that ensued. To pretend otherwise is to delude yourself. And, in any event, all of that is really beside the point. No one KNEW exactly what would happen if a fully-fueled 767 smashed directly into the building going at a breakneck speed. We all saw the results for ourselves. As the NIST concluded:

-- Each aircraft severed perimeter columns, damaged interior core columns and knocked off fireproofing from steel as the planes penetrated the buildings.

-- The weight carried by the severed columns was distributed to other columns.

-- Subsequently, fires began that were initiated by the aircraft’s jet fuel but were fed for the most part by the building contents and the air supply resulting from breached walls and fire-induced window breakage.

-- These fires, in combination with the dislodged fireproofing, were responsible for a chain of events in which the building core weakened and began losing its ability to carry loads.

-- The floors weakened and sagged from the fires, pulling inward on the perimeter columns.

-- Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.

-- Collapse then ensued.

I know you won't believe the "official" explanation -- even though you saw it happen live on TV -- but it is the truth. You probably also doubt that we landed on the moon, that a lone gunman killed JFK, and that Tim McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City.

Has it ever occured to you that a conspiracy as vast as you suggest would be extraordinarly hard to maintain? Who all was involved? To what end? Why have there been no leaks? Oh, wait, I'm probably part of the conspiracy, too.

And on the WTC 7 issue:

NIST has released video and still photo analysis of Building 7 prior to its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, a large 10-story gash existed on the south facade, extending a third across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior. A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would lead to a severely compromised structure. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately prior to the collapse, which started from the penthouse floors.
 
[quote name='onikage']A 767 may hold many more passengers, but the actual weight of the plane is only about 120% that of a 707. The amount of fuel on-board would have been far less than what the buildings were designed to be able to handle, assuming they were designed to absorb the impact of a loaded 707, which they supposedly were.



The building was designed to withstand such an impact, you are wrong. And I assume you believe the official story of events concerning building 7?[/QUOTE]

When they designed the WTC they did not design it with the expressed intention of it being able to survive the impact of a fully loaded jetliner. They did not sit down and begin planning by saying, we need to build an office tower that could survive the impact of a jetliner. What happened is that when they saw how the strong their design was, they surmised that the building could possibly withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707, which it did, and then some. What they didn't anticipate is that the resulting fires would weaken the structure to the point of collapse.
[quote name='sgs89']

I know you won't believe the "official" explanation -- even though you saw it happen live on TV -- but it is the truth. You probably also doubt that we landed on the moon, that a lone gunman killed JFK, and that Tim McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City.

Has it ever occured to you that a conspiracy as vast as you suggest would be extraordinarly hard to maintain? Who all was involved? To what end? Why have there been no leaks? Oh, wait, I'm probably part of the conspiracy, too.
[/QUOTE]

You know, its funny cause I used to believe the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory but now I've definetly changed my opinion. Like someone mentioned before most conspiracy theories ignore the overwhelming evidence that supports what they like to call "the official explanation" in favor of taking the few small nuggets of information that are kind of iffy and turning them into a fullblown conspiracuy.
 
well about the plane argument, this is a comparison picture. I dont know if its true or not. can anyone Verify?


aircraftcomparison.gif


You can see that they are not that different. In a lot of ways, so if it was meant to be hit by a b707, the plane that hit the buildings shouldn’t have done as much damage as it did. The fact is a steel frame building has never burned down to the ground, no matter how hot the fire has gotten, this is the first case. I don’t fully know how the towers fell but i have a deep feeling that what was told as the "official story" is not the "whole story"

Its not that I want to believe that lives were lost and it was terrorism pure and simple, its that some factors don’t add up, and I don’t even need to look at the wtc to to be suspicious. Mainly Iraq. The planes for Iraq were drawn up before 911. All that was needed was a smoking gun to do a switch of the terrorists with the Iraqies as most Americans, like myself at the time were ignorant of the vast differences between the people in the Middle East. At the very least, men in power let the wtc incident happen, and at the most, they are directly responsible for some if not all the destruction.

Benladin hasn’t be caught, why did we pull out our troops in Afghanistan to fight Iraq? It just screams of foul play. The moment we got into Iraq that is when I asked questions. It made no sense, I guess i never got cought up in that whole "terror" bit.


I wonder if the war in iraq goes all the way back to cabinet members of bush sr and the golf war? Or if its just a power grab with wire taping ect, or maybe its both?

If someone can explain how the official story of wtc7 isn’t total bs, please explain it to me.... I’m dieing to know. No planes hit it, and it had a few very minor fires. It fell hours and hours later with no structural damage. It was also wide enough to show a definite kink on the roof when it fell and it dident topple but sunk under the earth. Looked just like the demoed building in oceans 11
 
Yeah I suppose you're right, its only a 60,000 lb difference, what's that in the grand scheme of things... 20% heavier? Nah, that's nothin. You might also notice its 15' higher as well, that's over an entire more story on the building. Remember those plane parts sliced through support columns like a hot knife through butter.

I will say it once again, it was not just a fire that brought down the towers, it was a "perfect storm" of events and situations that led to its collapse. Now, as far as WTC 7 is concerned, if the government did implode it as part of their grand scheme what would have been the point? They were FAR from being the most recognized of buildings that were attacked on 9/11. HELL most people didn't even realize the world trade center HAD more than the 2 towers.

Plans in place prooves NOTHING. The military has plans for EVERYTHING. They literally have planners that sit around and do nothing but imagine scenarios and possible solutions to that scenario. As an example, during the cold war it was feared that the socialist leaning canada may have ended up going to a full communism. Then they thought they might invade the US and since North Dakota had so many missle silos that might be the first place they invade through. There was an actual official military plan that laid forth this outlandish scenario with the solution of sectioning off North Dakota and letting them have it.
 
White-Wolf, I think you are connecting dots where they don't exist. Were there plans to invade Iraq prior to 9/11? Undoubtedly. As RvB points out, the military has plans for almost all scenarios. Was 9/11 used as a cover to justify the invasion of Iraq, something the Bush administration wanted to do in any event? Quite possibly.

The flaw in your logic, however, is that you assume 9/11 was set up by our government to justify the invasion. What is much more probable -- indeed likely -- is that the government used 9/11 after it happened to further its policy goals. There is NO evidence that the government KNEW 9/11 was going to happen, allowed it to happen, or participated in it. Your speculation to the contrary is just that, speculation.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'] as far as WTC 7 is concerned, if the government did implode it as part of their grand scheme what would have been the point? They were FAR from being the most recognized of buildings that were attacked on 9/11. HELL most people didn't even realize the world trade center HAD more than the 2 towers.[/quote]
that’s the point, most people didn’t know, and don’t care, so why did it fall? why would wtc7 fall down 7-9 hours later after the two towers. i can tell you whatever foul play took place, it probably happened their.

It may not have seemed important, but if i was to hide the truth, i would hide it someplace no one would ever care to look. My guess is that their was some type of base of operations, as it would have had a good view from it to the two towers. But that’s speculation, but no one can give a good answers as to why it was demoed... sorry fell down by minor fires. I think the evidence was torched then blown up.

I’m just not the kind of guys who turns a blind eye and a def ear when a building falls down for no reason, looks like demo work, has connection to terrorism, then later a grand war and presidential power grabs. I tend to keep my view open rather then accept the official story that happens to come from those who make the power grabs and start the wars.


the official story of wtc Is a Lie, Becuse its a lie, That means this administation is not honest, so forgive me if i can not take thier words without first posing questions and casting shads of concern and doubt.




find out the truth of wtc7 and the rest of the truths will fall in to place.
 
I'm still waiting for an answer.

The thing I love about sites like these are they totally disregard facts and make their own assumptions. It reminds me of a Bill O'Reilly arguement: they are right because they have to be, not because the facts support it.

Example (and I'm only listing one because I'm on vacation): a review of 911review.org (and I have no idea if this site is deemed reliable by the crackheads) states that WTC 7 couldn't have come down naturally because 'Not to mention that, as any one with the slightest technical background knows, diesel at normal pressure is non-explosive and barely flammable.'

When did JET A become diesel?

Just a small example of the sites I can barely stand to look over.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']I'm still waiting for an explanation why the Popular Mechanics link I posted in the other thread (the one where you got slammed just like this one) isn't valid, but a wonky myspace one is.

Think about it. In fact, just think, it would be an improvement.

I bet you believe we didn't land on the moon, either.[/quote]
not sure what you mean by other thread, i post on alot of diffrent places on the net, you got that link so i can refresh my memory?

your first post was snarky so i must have skimmed over your posts... eh....

so why the popular mechanics is wrong? well lets start with this

It claims a fual line ruptured and took down wt7 along with undocumented damage?

does it address how the building has a demo kink? No. Does it address that no steel frame building ever fell to fire? no
Are they speculating? yes.

ah yes and finaly lets hear it for faulty dzn!!!! yes buildings that fall and we cant explain now have faulty dzn and will fall on you, your childen and everyone you hold dear....

this has cover up all over it.

if a gas line took out the building, wouldent it have been more colorfull?. Ah yes buildings dont burn down anymore, they just sink under the earth ....

[quote name='The Crotch']I swore to myself I'd refrain from commenting again, but I just had to point this gem out. That's one step below circular logic.[/quote]
naw its just a bad post riddled with mestakes, its not a lie becuse its a lie, its a lie and thus claims and official stories must be scrutinized.

the official story of wtc Is a Lie (via wtc7), That means this administation is not honest, so forgive me if i can not take thier words without first posing questions and casting shads of concern and doubt.
 
[quote name='White-Wolf']that’s the point, most people didn’t know, and don’t care, so why did it fall? why would wtc7 fall down 7-9 hours later after the two towers. i can tell you whatever foul play took place, it probably happened their.

It may not have seemed important, but if i was to hide the truth, i would hide it someplace no one would ever care to look. My guess is that their was some type of base of operations, as it would have had a good view from it to the two towers. But that’s speculation, but no one can give a good answers as to why it was demoed... sorry fell down by minor fires. I think the evidence was torched then blown up.

I’m just not the kind of guys who turns a blind eye and a def ear when a building falls down for no reason, looks like demo work, has connection to terrorism, then later a grand war and presidential power grabs. I tend to keep my view open rather then accept the official story that happens to come from those who make the power grabs and start the wars.


the official story of wtc Is a Lie, Becuse its a lie, That means this administation is not honest, so forgive me if i can not take thier words without first posing questions and casting shads of concern and doubt.




find out the truth of wtc7 and the rest of the truths will fall in to place.[/QUOTE]

A base of operations? I'm really not trying to be a smart ass here but have you ever stopped to think about how ridiculous some of your arguments have become? If there was this fabled "base of operations" wouldn't it have made more sense for it to have been on a boat out in the harbor? Then after everything was done with they could have floated that boat on out to open water and sank the fucker where no one could have been able to comb through any wreckage. If the people behind this conspiracy had as much foresight as you seem to think they do wouldn't they have done a better job of covering their tracks than blowing up the building they used as a base of operations. Hell, if this thing was half as coordinated as the conspiracy theorists make it out to be why would they even need a fucking base of operations?

You watch too many movies.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']
You watch too many movies.[/quote]
at least i know something is strange when A building falls down all by its self and no ones will to talk about it. I think people have seen too many movies, or they would beable to tell the difference between a building falling down becuse of a fire or a building falling down becuse it was demoed.

you attack the weakest link, but can you attack the strongest?
 
[quote name='White-Wolf']at least i know something is strange when A building falls down all by its self and no ones will to talk about it. I think people have seen too many movies, or they would beable to tell the difference between a building falling down becuse of a fire or a building falling down becuse it was demoed.

you attack the weakest link, but can you attack the strongest?[/QUOTE]

My entire post about your mythical base of operations and that's all you reply to? This "base of operations" theory is your motive for them destroying WTC7 that makes it the most important part of your argument, not the weakest link.
 
I'm wondering how you can have experience talking about buildings coming down because of buildings coming down. You now, as if it's happened before.

No one can be an expert in a field talking about probables and what you expect to happen. They say WTC 7 couldn't have come down naturally because it looks like a controlled demolition. I'm sorry, I didn't know there were seminars and practice sessions about buildings being hit by planes and the effects on surrounding buildings.

And Christ, at least take the time to make your posts readable. You might come off a little more credible if we could actually decipher what you are trying to say.

I'll totally destroy all the points you bring up sometime after my vacation is over, because I don't want to reach through the screen and strangle someone when they totally disregard facts and come up with moronic excuses like the ones that have already been typed.
 
Magic trick?! Boy I would love to see the towers returned with a group of people around Ground Zero. That would be amazing!

Dumbass. fuck you, you jackass.
 
---------
I don’t know why wtc7 fell down its just a hunch, no the bases of my argument is not that it’s a base of operations, but it fell down without any apparent damage or extreme fire. Its alittle strange when that happens? I just guessed it had a truth worth hiding if it fell down without a real explanation based on facts. So if wtc7 is a lie, how far does that lie stretch? If your friend died, and they told you he burned to death but instead it looks like he was crushed, wouldn’t you want answers, what if his death was connected to two other deaths, under similar strange circumstances. Wouldn’t you want an investigation outside of the group of people who gave the death certificate?

----------

----------
But if you can’t tell a demoed building from one that burns down... that’s a little strange. we see demoed buildings on tv and in movies all the time. Are you telling me it didn’t look like that? It didn’t sink under the earth, that it dident have a kink or fault line? Tisk.
----------

----------
magic tricks... misdirection, yeah when someone is looking at the left hand you slight of hand with with the other. Happens all the time. Why do you think every terror alert that has come out after 911 has been around the same time the administration has done something stupid or regrettable.

So yeah i don’t think that makes me an asshole. But i think you fit if your not willing to actually say anything more then that.
----------


Now people, don’t lie to yourselves about being lied to, that’s just absurd. It doesn’t all pan out, and the questions are not all answered.
 
Yeah neither is the moon questions, or who really shot JFK. :roll:

You truely are a dumbass. If you want to beleive in something you think it into being

Why are you so fucking dumb? How can someone be as dumb as you are? It doesn’t all pan out, and the questions are not all answered.
 
[quote name='David85']Yeah neither is the moon questions, or who really shot JFK. :roll:

You truely are a dumbass. If you want to beleive in something you think it into being

Why are you so fucking dumb? How can someone be as dumb as you are? It doesn’t all pan out, and the questions are not all answered.[/QUOTE]

Well come to think of it, OP would believe the moon landings if he was there. I wonder if we can arrange for that somehow?
 
[quote name='David85']Yeah neither is the moon questions, or who really shot JFK. :roll:

You truely are a dumbass. If you want to beleive in something you think it into being

Why are you so fucking dumb? How can someone be as dumb as you are? It doesn’t all pan out, and the questions are not all answered.[/quote]

You certainly show brilliance with this post. Whether you like it or not, all the legitimate questions surrounding 9/11 haven't been completely answered. Not everyone who feels that there is more to the story is crazy or a "conspiracy nut".

I've read these discussions many times before, on other boards, with facts presented both for and against the official version of events. They never end, as both sides feel like they have evidence that supports their point of view. Supposedly respectable publications (Popular Mechanics, Scientific American, etc.) are alluded to as if they are indisputable, though there are many who feel such "debunking" attempts have themselves been largely disproved.
 
Onikage, thanks for your support. Its hard having an unpopular view. Maybe I should not have made this post. I guess all posts in the vs threads are flamebate though... or flamerbate

David85, so you want to know about me? Just ask, I would be happy to explain how I have come to my views and why I hold them, but you have to ask NICELY which you have not done yet.

I don’t think I or anyone else is dumb for asking questions or wanting answers. WTC 7 is pretty odd, and no one has posted any real answers that don’t reek of suspsion such as faulty dzn and gas buildup.

911 was used as a misdirection for use in iraq war, while quickly abandoning the Afghanistan skirmish. If Binladin was our enemy wouldn’t the president peruse him more vigilantly rather then displacing 911 to Sudam?
 
[quote name='The Crotch']When all else fails, I guess you just have to... I dunno, resort to ad hominems. And poor ones, at that.

Bullmotherfuckingshit. If 9/11 was meant to be an excuse for Iraq, then why would we be in Afghanistan in the first place? If Bin Laden wasn't our enemy, then why wouldn't we have just left him alone? Seems to me you have things a little... backwards.[/quote]


Well we aren’t in Afghanistan anymore at least not like we were after 911, we are in Iraq now, however and Bin is still their laughing at the foxnews sitcoms.

All you need is alittle war mongering and do a old terror switcharo.

They *bush and friands* got us into iraq because they said their was a connection between bin and sudam. So far the only connection i have found is that they hated each other, but if you look at what was said at the time, bush made it seem like they were alies.

If bin is our enemy and our only true enemy, why did we let him go? why did we not peruse him with death cold vigilance? simply bush didn’t give a shit, he got his doppelganger and that’s all he really cared about.

But to answer your bold question... *hahaha get it*.... it was too keep up appearances.

If bush really gave a shit about 911 things would have happened very differently.

But ask yourself, who is behind this, well I think all we need to do is follow those no bid contracts.

911 was the lady in the red dress and we took that double take, now we are in Iraq. (sorry a matrix ref just seemed to fit)
 
Unlike some of the posters in this thread, I'm going to try replying without flaming or berating anyone. The OP stated his opinion based on the information he has been presented and I don't think he deserves to be called a "dumbass" because of it.

My opinion (and that's all this is) is that not everything happened exactly the way the official story says it did. Now, that's not to say the whole thing is a giant consipiracy. I mean, really, a consipiracy that big wouldn't stay secret more than a few hours after it was conceptualized. But there are some things that don't make sense.

For one, the building collapses did look like demolitions to me. Granted, I'm no expert but they fell awfully straight for such tall, irregularly-damaged structure.

Also, I can't find any hard proof (other than a hole that seems too small) that the pentagon was actually hit with a 757. Odd, considering how highly surveilled the pentagon is. If anyone can show me a picture or video of a plane hitting the pentagon or even of some wreckage (there appears to be none) from a 757, I'd be inclined to believe it. So far I have seen none of this.

So, there are definitely some things that don't add up in my mind. I'm not prepared to say it's a massive government conspiracy but things don't seem to be kosher, either.

Can anyone respond to these concerns? Intelligently?
 
im glad we have something in common the crotch. I think we had to go after bin at first, becuse he admited to flying the planes into the wtc (via video) and it was put on the news.

oh and welcome, Andred
 
i guess your right, so why did the us bug out on afgan? couldent war profiteering be done thier insted of iraq? was it an old grudge that we went into iraq?

I still think it would be easyer to connect bin to saddam, then say bin is saddam, or that saddam is frameing bin.
 
Basicly i think linking Bin to the word Terrorism, Then Terrorism to Sudam was an easyer thing to do then to link Sudam directly to 911
 
I threw a rock at my brother once and he fell down.

I don't understand... a rock shouldn't be able to knock down a person.
 
[quote name='lordwow']I threw a rock at my brother once and he fell down.

I don't understand... a rock shouldn't be able to knock down a person.[/quote]
And if you threw that rock at your borther, and his friand that was oh... 10 feet away from him fell down 8 hours later from the dust that erupted from your borthers fall, would you then wonder what the hell happend?

Thats whats up with wtc7. Any questions?

hahah nice try. How about you read the thread first.
 
[quote name='White-Wolf']And if you threw that rock at your borther, and his friand that was oh... 10 feet away from him fell down 8 hours later from the dust that erupted from your borthers fall, would you then wonder what the hell happend?

Thats whats up with wtc7. Any questions?

hahah nice try. How about you read the thread first.[/QUOTE]

I did, I figured since we were talking about ridiculous scenarios, I'd add one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top