Who actually feels the United States was behind the towers colapse - Page 5 - GoFuckYourself.com

helterskelter808 · 09-11-2011, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

CIA director George Tenet had a meeting with Condoleezza Rice where he told her there was specific threat coming form al qaeda targeted at the US.

Clearly, if your plan is to frame "Al Qaeda" for a terrorist attack, it's a good idea to lay the 'clues' pointing to them ahead of time. Alternatively, that is simply more evidence that the Government knew.

Conspiracy theorists are well aware that Condi herself (or if you refuse to believe it was her, someone else) warned her friend Willie Brown not to fly to NY on 9/11 and that John Ashcroft stopped using commercial airlines mid-2001 and that certain others, such as the Israeli company Odigo, also received warnings of the attacks just before they happened.

Something tells me it wasn't Bin Laden issuing little 'heads ups' from his cave.

Quote:

Why was there explosions in the basement of WTC7 shortly after impact? Sounds horrible, but maybe it was completely unconnected to 9/11.

Maybe it was, but has it been investigated?

Quote:

Why was there helicopters flying around the wtc shortly before the crashes? Is it even really suspect that there was helicopters flying on a business day in one of the largest cities in the world?

I would assume probably not, but why would people specifically remember something if it wasn't unusual?

Quote:

Someone in this thread posted a video of a demolition truck in NYC shortly after the crash. Looks really odd... But clearly there are dozens of demolitions companies in NYC, if not hundreds - so it makes perfect sense that a truck was driving around in NYC that morning.

Well that kind of stuff, like a lot of the conspiracy stuff, is clutching at straws. If they were controlled demos, I doubt they'd be using trucks painted with the likes of ACME WTC DEMOLITIONS, INC on the side, rather than CUDDLY BEARS, INC.

I think though, people who blindly swallow the Government version are just as insane as the craziest conspiracy loons who refuse to accept anything about the official story.

DBS.US · 09-11-2011, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wehateporn

I haven't seen this before, the Manhattan Demolition Truck

Call them up

Manhattan Demolition Co , Inc
813 43rd Road
Long Island City, NY

Phone: (718) 361-0397

Bird · 09-11-2011, 12:26 PM

Seriously why would they choose 9-1-1 if they were not american. Stupid terrorists have no clue what US and Canada Emergency Phone Number is...They all use different phone numbers to dial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_telephone_number

helterskelter808 · 09-11-2011, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CodeR70

What bothers me is that the two towers do not come down as if it's a demolished building, but many people will tell you that because they have building 7 in mind as well. Building 7 is a different story, you can argue about that (just pure about the comparison of collapsing buildings). But the collapse of building 7 was again totally different then both towers.

I agree. I have never been able to understand why people think the twin towers were 'demolished'. They don't look like they were, IMHO, and in fact I think it's just a huge waste of time arguing about that, when there are more credible 'theories' around. They were hit by great big fucking planes, nobody denies that fact, and I'm willing to believe that may have played a role in their destruction.

WTC7 though is a 100% cast iron, textbook copy of a controlled demolition. Comparing it to other buildings that are controlled demolitions, it seems to look exactly the same. In fact until reading these threads lately, I had assumed it was admitted/not in doubt that WTC7 was "pulled".

BTW, where is the video that shows a plane hitting the Pentagon?

helterskelter808 · 09-11-2011, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bird

Seriously why would they choose 9-1-1 if they were not american. Stupid terrorists have no clue what US and Canada Emergency Phone Number is...They all use different phone numbers to dial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_telephone_number

Even if they did know the number, they'd have chosen 9 November, because only the USA puts the dates that way around.

Edit: LOL Having said that, according to that page, the emergency number for Afghanistan is 119.

CodeR70 · 09-11-2011, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

BTW, where is the video that shows a plane hitting the Pentagon?

It's the video/security cam shots. You know, you only see a few frames. In one of the first frames you see the the smoke from the right engine that touches the ground. If you look at it, not close up, just look at it as the whole image is. You see the united airplane, with it's tail sticking up.

I think some time ago I saw an animation that was combined with that video. Check this one https://youtube.com/watch?v=ae63iivRHt8

It first start with united 93, but after that it shows you the animation and the images of the security cam (right after the lighting poles).

CodeR70 · 09-11-2011, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Even if they did know the number, they'd have chosen 9 November, because only the USA puts the dates that way around.

Edit: LOL Having said that, according to that page, the emergency number for Afghanistan is 119.

Not only that, they were living in US for a while, some even studied for years in the US. They were not completely ignorant about the US. BTW, I'm Dutch, never been to the US and even I did/do know 911 is the emergency number over there. It's not a big unknown secret you know.

CodeR70 · 09-11-2011, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CodeR70

It first start with united 93, but after that it shows you the animation and the images of the security cam (right after the lighting poles).

BTW, I find the lighting poles very convincing proof.

Rochard · 09-11-2011, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

I agree. I have never been able to understand why people think the twin towers were 'demolished'. They don't look like they were, IMHO, and in fact I think it's just a huge waste of time arguing about that, when there are more credible 'theories' around. They were hit by great big fucking planes, nobody denies that fact, and I'm willing to believe that may have played a role in their destruction.

WTC7 though is a 100% cast iron, textbook copy of a controlled demolition. Comparing it to other buildings that are controlled demolitions, it seems to look exactly the same. In fact until reading these threads lately, I had assumed it was admitted/not in doubt that WTC7 was "pulled".

BTW, where is the video that shows a plane hitting the Pentagon?

While eating lunch I was watching "World Trade Center: Rise and Fall of an American Icon" and son of a bitch, WTC7 does look when it fell.

PornoStar69 · 09-11-2011, 01:30 PM

rochard your mother & sister - i had them both.

CodeR70 · 09-11-2011, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornoStar69

rochard your mother & sister - i had them both.

Is the size of your font making up for something?

CodeR70 · 09-11-2011, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

While eating lunch I was watching "World Trade Center: Rise and Fall of an American Icon" and son of a bitch, WTC7 does look when it fell.

And then what Larry the Scary was telling about it that "they pulled" the building. ;)

BTW, Larry still makes my hair in my neck stand up straight. He's probably the only one that really benefited from this. And no, I don't insinuate anything with this. I don't think he had anything to do with it, he's just a fucking lucky bastard (if you can speak in those terms that is).

CaptainHowdy · 09-11-2011, 01:45 PM

Rochard · 09-11-2011, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornoStar69

rochard your mother & sister - i had them both.

My mother is older than Baddog, and my sister has a scorching case of herpes.

PornoStar69 · 09-11-2011, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

My mother is older than Baddog, and my sister has a scorching case of herpes.

ok, well i'll just think about them while im jacking off.

MediaGuy · 09-11-2011, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CodeR70

Dude, they don't. The collapsing, especially the start of it, is different. You can see that on the thousands of available videos. The first tower that collapsed you see that it really breaks and start to reach over. The whole part from impact to top stays intact for a few seconds. The second tower drops down from the inside, top down.

Also, the idea of falling "symmetrically into it's own footprint" is just not true. If that was really the case then there would not have been so much damage on all the buildings around it. Sure, they fall down, as not over. But really look at the videos for one moment and really try to see what's happening. It's not that "perfect" as people may tell you. What bothers me is that the two towers do not come down as if it's a demolished building, but many people will tell you that because they have building 7 in mind as well. Building 7 is a different story, you can argue about that (just pure about the comparison of collapsing buildings). But the collapse of building 7 was again totally different then both towers.

I don't mind if you feel it's suspicious. Good for you because I do not believe everything that was written and said. But using a bit common sense makes a lot more clear.

Yeah you're right.

I was generalizing for argument's sake, but the initiation of both WTC collapses is completely different..

The south tower, first to fall, begins to tip above the collapse area and then continues down in line with the rest of the building, reducing itself to dust like the rest of the building without any apparent reasons to do so,

The north tower doesn't even bother. I starts to collapse above and below the crash point without any reason and just flows like lava right down into it's own body without any interferece.

The majority of the buildinds did fall into their own footprint.

The damage to other buildings was caused by parts of the WTC being flung out against all rules of vertical, gravitionally driven collapses.

CodeR70 · 09-11-2011, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

The majority of the buildinds did fall into their own footprint.

I'm really have a hard time believing this, if you see the huge area of debris afterwards. If you have a building that falls into it's own footprint, it drops into it, from below ending up with a pile. I mean, the building as a whole drops down (WTC 7 is a good example of that). I just don't see that with the Twin Towers. They clearly are destroyed from top to bottom. You actually see in the videos that there is so much debris that it piles over like water (not sure how to explain that, but I think you know what I mean).

A few times I talked about WTC 7. That one is still very disturbing to me. I don't believe in the conspiracy stories so much. But on some level I could believe it's done on purpose (demolished on purpose). The weird thing is, if I remember it correctly, my first thought was 10 years ago, that it was demolished on purpose because authorities thought it was a better solution to solve a dangerous situation. Still, can you do that in a few hours? I know that these demolishing projects takes weeks to months to prepare. And if the preparation is not done precisely then these projects go completely wrong (we have all seen the documentaries I sure).

EDIT: Sorry man, it's late and my English getting worse by the hours. I hope it makes sense though. :D

helterskelter808 · 09-11-2011, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CodeR70

The weird thing is, if I remember it correctly, my first thought was 10 years ago, that it was demolished on purpose because authorities thought it was a better solution to solve a dangerous situation. Still, can you do that in a few hours? I know that these demolishing projects takes weeks to months to prepare. And if the preparation is not done precisely then these projects go completely wrong (we have all seen the documentaries I sure).

Again, same here. I don't know if it was 10 years or not, but years ago I too had assumed that it had been demolished, and in fact, especially vaguely recalling the "pull it" thing, had thought that was now just an 'official' fact, that was admitted to.

It was when I read a website talking about how could they have demolished it in that space of time, which I hadn't thought about, that I began to wonder about it. I mean if it had been demolished, that would make sense to me, it wouldn't indicate any conspiracy (except if the time to do it made it impossible), just that like you say, it was safer to bring it down, and maybe it contained sensitive (non-conspiracy) information they rightly didn't want to get out.

So the fact they are denying it was demolished is what's 'suspicious'.

wehateporn · 09-11-2011, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I'm fascinated by 9/11 and World War 2. I can debate both until I'm out of breath. I read a lot about both, mostly WW2. I just finished a book called Schindler's List; Seems there was a lot the movie failed to mention. I don't read about 9/11 as much, but I've read the 9/11 Commission Report, Debunking 9/11, and Debunking Dubunking 9/11. When this happened in 2001 I believe it at face value, and while I've read all about the 9/11 conspiracy theories, I have yet to find anything that changes my opinion of what happened that day. We can debate how the towers fell until we are blue in the face but the truth is we'll never know.

Before I answer your question.... I former US Military, and the military "serves at the pleasure of the President". We don't serve Bush or Obama, the Democratic or Republican parties, but we we answer to whomever is President at that moment.

If the President Obama (or Bush for that matter) came out in the morning and said that 9/11 was done by the US Military, CIA, or Israel.... I have no idea if I would believe them or not.

There are too many holes in the conspiracy theories. Why would they have used airplanes at all - why not bomb them? If the airplanes were remote controlled from the ground, what happened to flight 93 in Shanksville? What happened to all of those people who got on those airplanes?

I do believe our government lies to us. You know JFK wasn't shot by a magical fucking bullet, and you know that Israel knowingly attacked a US Navy ship during the Six Day War. But I don't think they could lie about this. But I think there is a huge difference between telling a lie after the fact and intentionally causing an incident. In other words, Oswald set out to kill JFK but it was the Secret Service who shot and killed him. (In short... The Secret Service was heavily armed with sub machine guns, Oswald takes a pot shot, everyone grabs their weapons, and opps JFK was shot from behind.) The Secret Service didn't plan on killing JFK - it was an accident - but they covered it up by altering a few facts. Here with 9/11 the conspiracy theories say that this was intentionally done by the US Government as a pretext to build a pipeline in Afghanistan that still hasn't been built. But there is way too many things they would have to cover up and hide to pull this off.

Thanks for your reply Rochard, I'll get back to you on this hopefully tomorrow

WarChild · 09-11-2011, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Again, same here. I don't know if it was 10 years or not, but years ago I too had assumed that it had been demolished, and in fact, especially vaguely recalling the "pull it" thing, had thought that was now just an 'official' fact, that was admitted to.

It was when I read a website talking about how could they have demolished it in that space of time, which I hadn't thought about, that I began to wonder about it. I mean if it had been demolished, that would make sense to me, it wouldn't indicate any conspiracy (except if the time to do it made it impossible), just that like you say, it was safer to bring it down, and maybe it contained sensitive (non-conspiracy) information they rightly didn't want to get out.

So the fact they are denying it was demolished is what's 'suspicious'.

The whole "Pull it" thing is so stupid I can't believe people keep bringing it up. It simply doesn't make sense that the Fire Chief, in combination with Silverstein, decided to demo a building. You think the fire chief would be sending his men in to a building that he knew had already been rigged for demolition? All to obey his "New World Order" masters? It's just absurd.

CodeR70 · 09-11-2011, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

So the fact they are denying it was demolished is what's 'suspicious'.

Exactly that.

In 1992 an airplane crashed in an apartment building in Amsterdam (Wikipedia). First news account were, mostly on radio, talking about "man in white suits" in the debris field. At that time nobody thought that it was strange. For me I actually though, of course, a plane comes down with unknown cargo, there is a lot of fires, smoke and such. Why wouldn't there be "man in white suits"? It started to get "suspicious" when official channels starting to deny that. Even the official report denies that fact.

I have the same feeling here with WTC 7.

wehateporn · 09-11-2011, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

It simply doesn't make sense that the Fire Chief, in combination with Silverstein, decided to demo a building.

The people who would have made the decision to demo the building would be far higher up the chain of command e.g. Rockefeller's themselves or one level below.

There could have been evidence in that building that it was an inside job. All evidence had to be destroyed

helterskelter808 · 09-11-2011, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

The whole "Pull it" thing is so stupid I can't believe people keep bringing it up. It simply doesn't make sense that the Fire Chief, in combination with Silverstein, decided to demo a building. You think the fire chief would be sending his men in to a building that he knew had already been rigged for demolition? All to obey his "New World Order" masters? It's just absurd.

Quote:

I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger - and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things - that they did it in a controlled fashion. - John Kerry, talking about WTC7

I'm still not sure what I think about the BBC report where they announced WTC7 had come down 20 minutes before it had actually done so. It's just weird to think how they could make a 'mistake' like that.

helterskelter808 · 09-11-2011, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CodeR70

In 1992 an airplane crashed in an apartment building in Amsterdam (Wikipedia). First news account were, mostly on radio, talking about "man in white suits" in the debris field. At that time nobody thought that it was strange. For me I actually though, of course, a plane comes down with unknown cargo, there is a lot of fires, smoke and such. Why wouldn't there be "man in white suits"? It started to get "suspicious" when official channels starting to deny that. Even the official report denies that fact.

Men in white suits means to me forensic guys so, yeah, a good reason to be there. Though, I actually remember that crash, an Israeli flight, IIRC a non-passenger flight and a lot of immigrants were killed I think. But, given the country involved and it being a cargo plane, it wouldn't be a big surprise to me if they were NBC/hazmat suits.

Edit: just read that Wiki page now, and seems probable that the flight did contain chemical or biological weapons material. Interesting to read that all Boeing planes contained hundreds of pounds of depleted uranium too. WTF?

WarChild · 09-11-2011, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

I'm still not sure what I think about the BBC report where they announced WTC7 had come down 20 minutes before it had actually done so. It's just weird to think how they could make a 'mistake' like that.

Apply Occam's Razor, which basically states "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.".

So one theory would be that in the confusion of the day's events, a newstation, or perhaps just the news anchor, made a mistake.

The other theory is that the building was wired for demolition by some nefarious group of people, a project that until this day 10 years later has never been exposed. This group of people then decides that it would be best to let a News station in the UK in on it so they could report it in a timely manner.

Now given that once it happened, it would be common knowledge, not something that was easily overlooked, why would you need or even want to send out information before it happened especially given that it creates a potential avenue to expose your actions later.

The answer is simple in this case. Even if the building were demolished in secret, there would be absolutely no compelling reason to notify a UK news station before the event. In this case, believing in the "conspiracy" to start with invalidates the proof you're using for a conspiracy existing. It doesn't make any sense.

porno jew · 09-11-2011, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CodeR70

And then what Larry the Scary was telling about it that "they pulled" the building. ;)

BTW, Larry still makes my hair in my neck stand up straight. He's probably the only one that really benefited from this. And no, I don't insinuate anything with this. I don't think he had anything to do with it, he's just a fucking lucky bastard (if you can speak in those terms that is).

if larry demolished building seven why would he admit it on tv? totally absurd.

porno jew · 09-11-2011, 04:49 PM

plenty of real factual evidence that silverstein meant to "pull" the firefighters out of the building.

zero evidence he meant it to mean a controlled demolition.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm scroll down.

WarChild · 09-11-2011, 04:50 PM

Here is an actual controlled demolition

Now yes I suppose you can argue that building 7 falling looked similar. I mean, it was a building and it was falling down.

One thing I never hear these so called "truthers" explain is the difference in the SOUND. Where are the sounds of explosives during the WTC Collapse? I mean according to one of people in this very thread, the ONLY way WTC7 could have fallen as it did is if ALL supporting columns were eliminated at exactly the same time in one fell swoop. If this is true, where are the sounds from the demolition explosions?

porno jew · 09-11-2011, 04:51 PM

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...tomean%22demol

Is "Pull" used by demolitions pros to mean "demolish with explosives?"

No.

WarChild · 09-11-2011, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

plenty of real factual evidence that silverstein meant to "pull" the firefighters out of the building.

zero evidence he meant it to mean a controlled demolition.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm scroll down.

Of course there isn't any evidence because the argument is absurd.

Even if we believe that building was demolished in some clandestine operation, the idea that it would involve the Fire Chief (or was he a captain?), who after a long career of service decided it was time to serve his masters and risked the lives of the men he works with everyday, is just stupid on the face.

One thing you'll notice over and over about "truthers" is they hold what they call evidence that supports their conclusion to a much, much, much lower standard than they would hold any evidence that refutes their position.

Here's an extreme example: NIST explains exactly how the towers fell. Pornstar69 or whatever his stupid name is, and I can't believe I'm really refferencing him here given that I have to assume that any sound mind on any side of the argument knows he's full of shit, simply dismisses the NIST report as having been bought and paid for by "The Illuminati" all the while holding up a screen grab of the numbers 9 and 11 appearing together in a frame or two of the movie "The Matrix".

CodeR70 · 09-11-2011, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Interesting to read that all Boeing planes contained hundreds of pounds of depleted uranium too. WTF?

Yes, this was very disturbing during the public hearings. There was a guy working in the hangar where debris was dumped. The guy did not know about the uranium if I remember correctly and he got sick from it after a few years.

My understanding is that they use it in the tales for counter weight (because it's a "heavy metal"). Not sure if they still do that though.

CodeR70 · 09-11-2011, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...tomean%22demol

Is "Pull" used by demolitions pros to mean "demolish with explosives?"

No.

But what does it mean then when somebody says "the building was pulled"? IMHO it means a "manual activity" not "as a result of?".

helterskelter808 · 09-11-2011, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

if larry demolished building seven why would he admit it on tv? totally absurd.

Why not 'admit' it? It's not a crime. It makes perfect sense to pull a dangerous building. The question isn't why would they pull WTC7, it's why they would start denying they pulled it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

plenty of real factual evidence that silverstein meant to "pull" the firefighters out of the building.

Do you need a Google Sites page to tell you that nobody refers to "firefighters" as "it"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

Is "Pull" used by demolitions pros to mean "demolish with explosives?"

Is Silverstein a demolitions pro?

wehateporn · 09-11-2011, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

Even if the building were demolished in secret, there would be absolutely no compelling reason to notify a UK news station before the event.

For those who knew the plan beforehand, there was so much going on that it would have been difficult to know exactly which stage they were up to. Someone must have thought WTC7 had already gone down as they knew it was going to come down, they communicated this to the BBC to soon.

Look at Bush's reaction when he was first told about the planes. He had stage fright and was being careful not to jump too far ahead in the storyline, he figured better to play it safe and give more time for events to unfold, then verify where the plan was up to before speaking to the world.

Also, how perfect is it that he would be reading in a school at the time, when combined with all of the other strange events that day; Bush reading in a school is too Perfect i.e. "What a nice guy!"

CodeR70 · 09-11-2011, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

Even if we believe that building was demolished in some clandestine operation,

Why clandestine? Every day buildings are demolished for the reason that leaving them standing is more dangerous. If somebody told me: WTC7 is "pulled" (or whatever terms they use) because the building was dangerously weakened and could fall down on rescue workers?

That would make PERFECT sense to me. I think nobody would argue much about such a "decision". I'm not saying that this was the case, but what if?

WarChild · 09-11-2011, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wehateporn

For those who knew the plan beforehand, there was so much going on that it would have been difficult to know exactly which stage they were up to. Someone must have thought WTC7 had already gone down as they knew it was going to come down, they communicated this to the BBC to soon.

No, this again doesn't make any sense. There would be no reason for anybody involved at all to report it to the BBC period. If your conspiracy were true, it would make no sense for those involved to report something that would end up being reported anyways. If you're trying to keep your involvment in something a secret, you don't get involved in uncessary ways.

These exact kind of logical fallacies is what makes it so difficult to take any of you seriously. You're pointing to ridiculous stupid things to support a vast and complex theory.

Anyway guys, I just wanted to point out how silly some of you are. I don't want to argue with you about what happened or what didn't happen. Believe what you want.

WarChild · 09-11-2011, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CodeR70

Why clandestine? Every day buildings are demolished for the reason that leaving them standing is more dangerous. If somebody told me: WTC7 is "pulled" (or whatever terms they use) because the building was dangerously weakened and could fall down on rescue workers?

That would make PERFECT sense to me. I think nobody would argue much about such a "decision". I'm not saying that this was the case, but what if?

So it really makes sense to you that during the confusion of the day, while shit was going down everywhere, a demolish team was dispatched to a massive building, that was already weakened and on fire, to setup a controlled demolition. Further, the Fire Chief, somebody who doesn't do demolition as part of his routine job, was waiting simply for Larry to tell him it was time to do it?

Good lord, this is crazy. I'm out of this thread.

CodeR70 · 09-11-2011, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

Here is an actual controlled demolition

Now yes I suppose you can argue that building 7 falling looked similar. I mean, it was a building and it was falling down.

One thing I never hear these so called "truthers" explain is the difference in the SOUND. Where are the sounds of explosives during the WTC Collapse? I mean according to one of people in this very thread, the ONLY way WTC7 could have fallen as it did is if ALL supporting columns were eliminated at exactly the same time in one fell swoop. If this is true, where are the sounds from the demolition explosions?

You have a good point? But people did hear explosions. I have seen those interviews where a guy talks about "boom boom boom". I think it was used many time by "truthers" as well.

On the other hand, sound with news footage? Did you "hear" the Twin Towers fall? There is more footage where you see them fall in silent then footage with the real sounds (those of the cameras close to the buildings).

Rochard · 09-11-2011, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CodeR70

You have a good point? But people did hear explosions. I have seen those interviews where a guy talks about "boom boom boom". I think it was used many time by "truthers" as well.

On the other hand, sound with news footage? Did you "hear" the Twin Towers fall? There is more footage where you see them fall in silent then footage with the real sounds (those of the cameras close to the buildings).

That was a lot of explosions for such small buildings....

wehateporn · 09-11-2011, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

No, this again doesn't make any sense. There would be no reason for anybody involved at all to report it to the BBC period. If your conspiracy were true, it would make no sense for those involved to report something that would end up being reported anyways. If you're trying to keep your involvment in something a secret, you don't get involved in uncessary ways.

If the conspiracy is true, they would want complete control of the reporting/reasoning from the beginning, you wouldn't want to risk someone else reporting it and saying "Looks like a controlled demolition". It's very important with these events to be the first one in, hence the rush and mistake.

Like with this plant below, being first to explain what has happened. It seems the Official Story was born from the street. They had to be careful about asking randoms in case they started talking about explosions

CodeR70 · 09-11-2011, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

So it really makes sense to you that during the confusion of the day, while shit was going down everywhere

If I remember correctly, when WTC7 came down it was hours after "while shit was going down". Nothing makes sense to me of that day. But demolishing a building because it's a danger to keep it standing is making sense to me yes. If you had read my earlier post, I do wonder if that is possible in a short time. I do know that most of these demolishing teams take weeks or months to prepare.

Rochard · 09-11-2011, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

Even if we believe that building was demolished in some clandestine operation, the idea that it would involve the Fire Chief (or was he a captain?), who after a long career of service decided it was time to serve his masters and risked the lives of the men he works with everyday, is just stupid on the face.

I'm confused now. Who put the explosives in the building? Was the Fire Chief working for the city, the federal government, the CIA, the White House, the Israelis, or the terrorists?

I guess the fire chief was one of the thousands who took part in this and kept it quiet all of this time.

wehateporn · 09-11-2011, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I'm confused now. Who put the explosives in the building? Was the Fire Chief working for the city, the federal government, the CIA, the White House, the Israelis, or the terrorists?

I guess the fire chief was one of the thousands who took part in this and kept it quiet all of this time.

For me the Fire Chief would have only known that WTC7 was going to be demolished shortly before it happened. He would also be told not to talk about that.

He wouldn't know anything else on the matter

Information is given out on a "Need to Know" basis

Rochard · 09-11-2011, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

I'm still not sure what I think about the BBC report where they announced WTC7 had come down 20 minutes before it had actually done so. It's just weird to think how they could make a 'mistake' like that.

Way to take someone's words out of context.

This is what I hear him say:

Quote:

"I don't believe there has been a formal investigation, I haven't heard that, and I don't know that. I do know that wall was in danger and that they made a decision based on the danger that it was destroying other things they did it in a controlled fashion".

He did not say they did a "demolition in a controlled fashion". What he was saying was "they made a decision to evacuate the building in a controlled fashion".

What the fuck does John Kerry have to do with anything related to 9/11?

Rochard · 09-11-2011, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wehateporn

For me the Fire Chief would have only known that WTC7 was going to be demolished shortly before it happened. He would also be told not to talk about that.

He wouldn't know anything else on the matter

Information is given out on a "Need to Know" basis

Why would the Fire Chief be involved at all?

Was he involved in the master plan? Did he have stocks in some oil company so we could invade a country that has no oil?

Would have a secret team operating out of some van give the order to set these imaginary explosives?

xholly · 09-11-2011, 07:39 PM

There comes a point when the argument becomes one of psychology rather than debating any evidence. The conspiracy movement ( not the truth movement, because you can't just make stuff up and call yourself a truth movement) has nothing... seriously nothing but made up ideas.

Of course its exciting to be part of this, believing that you know the real truth, that you are smarter than others and even smarter than the big bad government. Its an ego thing mainly and an inability to process information in a critical way. It provides excitement to bored lives and even creates some sort of order which is perhaps easier to accept than the random pointless deaths on that day and all the total bullshit that has happened since.

if you had something concrete everyone would believe you (hell it seems most people want to believe), but you have nothing.

helterskelter808 · 09-11-2011, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Way to take someone's words out of context.

Can you read? Here's what I posted:

Quote:

"I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger - and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things - that they did it in a controlled fashion."

Here is what you hear him say:

Quote:

"I do know that wall was in danger and that they made a decision based on the danger that it was destroying other things they did it in a controlled fashion".

What's the difference exactly, aside from punctuation and the fact I quoted him word for word, unlike you? I even posted the entire video, with everything he said, so how did I in any way take anything 'out of context'?

Quote:

He did not say they did a "demolition in a controlled fashion".

Where did I quote him saying that? I quoted him as saying exactly what he said.

Quote:

What he was saying was "they made a decision to evacuate the building in a controlled fashion".

I don't even see the words "evacuate the building" in the quote you said you heard him say, let alone what he actually said. Are you hearing voices in your head perhaps?

If you want the context of what he said, it's in the question he was asked, which was about Silverstein "pulling" the building and about the building being demolished. Nobody mentioned "evacuations" so I have no idea where you dreamed up that totally bizarre and ridiculous interpretation from.

Quote:

What the fuck does John Kerry have to do with anything related to 9/11?

At least as much as, for example, Popular Mechanics, I imagine.

porno jew · 09-11-2011, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xholly

There comes a point when the argument becomes one of psychology rather than debating any evidence.

that's pretty much it. it's a curious sociological / psychological phenomenon, nothing more.

porno jew · 09-11-2011, 08:57 PM

you're a hopeless deluded retard. there is much a point as discussing this with you than discussing string theory with the guy playing with his feces in the alley.

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Why not 'admit' it? It's not a crime. It makes perfect sense to pull a dangerous building. The question isn't why would they pull WTC7, it's why they would start denying they pulled it.

Do you need a Google Sites page to tell you that nobody refers to "firefighters" as "it"?

Is Silverstein a demolitions pro?

helterskelter808 · 09-11-2011, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

you're a hopeless deluded retard. there is much a point as discussing this with you than discussing string theory than with the guy playing with his feces in the alley.

Of course there's no point in your "discussing" it with me, or anyone else. For one thing you're probably out of websites to lazily copy and paste, to compensate for your utter lack of clue on this, and no doubt every other, subject.

09-11-2011, 12:26 PM	#203
Bird Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Stockton Posts: 4,365	Seriously why would they choose 9-1-1 if they were not american. Stupid terrorists have no clue what US and Canada Emergency Phone Number is...They all use different phone numbers to dial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_telephone_number __________________ ICQ:268731675

09-11-2011, 01:30 PM	#210
PornoStar69 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: xxweekxx mothers bed. Posts: 2,025	rochard your mother & sister - i had them both. __________________ GFY King?

09-11-2011, 01:45 PM	#213
CaptainHowdy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Happy in the dark. Posts: 93,178	__________________ FLASH SALE INSANITY! deal with a 100% Trusted Seller Buy Traffic Spots on a High-Quality Network 1 Year or Lifetime — That’s Right, Until the Internet Explodes!

09-11-2011, 04:50 PM	#228
WarChild Let slip the dogs of war. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bermuda Posts: 17,263	Here is an actual controlled demolition Now yes I suppose you can argue that building 7 falling looked similar. I mean, it was a building and it was falling down. One thing I never hear these so called "truthers" explain is the difference in the SOUND. Where are the sounds of explosives during the WTC Collapse? I mean according to one of people in this very thread, the ONLY way WTC7 could have fallen as it did is if ALL supporting columns were eliminated at exactly the same time in one fell swoop. If this is true, where are the sounds from the demolition explosions? __________________ .

09-11-2011, 04:49 PM	#227
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	plenty of real factual evidence that silverstein meant to "pull" the firefighters out of the building. zero evidence he meant it to mean a controlled demolition. http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm scroll down.

09-11-2011, 04:51 PM	#229
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...tomean%22demol Is "Pull" used by demolitions pros to mean "demolish with explosives?" No.

09-11-2011, 07:39 PM	#246
xholly Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 817	There comes a point when the argument becomes one of psychology rather than debating any evidence. The conspiracy movement ( not the truth movement, because you can't just make stuff up and call yourself a truth movement) has nothing... seriously nothing but made up ideas. Of course its exciting to be part of this, believing that you know the real truth, that you are smarter than others and even smarter than the big bad government. Its an ego thing mainly and an inability to process information in a critical way. It provides excitement to bored lives and even creates some sort of order which is perhaps easier to accept than the random pointless deaths on that day and all the total bullshit that has happened since. if you had something concrete everyone would believe you (hell it seems most people want to believe), but you have nothing.