100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Russia's tallest building burns- a raging inferno - but does | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
i thought it was some Jews dancing around with a palladium micro fission blaster, aimed at building 7... Cheney did it... bush had a detonator in his pocket while he was at the school...cabal...the bankers...NWO did it... anyone with a Jewish-sounding name was involved... oh, and my favorite, Zionists...(they were the masterminds of everyone listed above...) It does become more juicy everytime it is being retold! Guess next time it will be a ton of the finest nano-Thermite discovered in that Van,plus a Box of Box-Cutters,which they couldn't use,because they couldn't cut open the Box of Boxcutters for lack of having a Box-Cutter! Go figure! yep,it does get better with the re-telling! Adds new Bells and Whistles all the time! They were the Guys who had that Tesla Destructo-Ray in their Van! A mile of Two-inch High-tension Cable laid out to the nearby Powerplant! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i thought it was some Jews dancing around with a palladium micro fission blaster, aimed at building 7... Cheney did it... bush had a detonator in his pocket while he was at the school...cabal...the bankers...NWO did it... anyone with a Jewish-sounding name was involved... oh, and my favorite, Zionists...(they were the masterminds of everyone listed above...) It does become more juicy everytime it is being retold! Guess next time it will be a ton of the finest nano-Thermite discovered in that Van,plus a Box of Box-Cutters,which they couldn't use,because they couldn't cut open the Box of Boxcutters for lack of having a Box-Cutter! Go figure! yep,it does get better with the re-telling! Adds new Bells and Whistles all the time! They were the Guys who had that Tesla Destructo-Ray in their Van! A mile of Two-inch High-tension Cable laid out to the nearby Powerplant!
thats how they turned the steel into dust, and melted car engine blocks, and made most of the debris disappear... but the ray gun has it's drawbacks... they weren't really dancing, but trying to put the fire out... but i did find a new article that explains what really happened... http://www.sott.net/article/260739-A-Conversation-with-a-9-11-Angell these two have to the biggest nutbag CT'ers ever... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n order to understand the improbability of the government’s explanation of 9/11, it is not necessary to know anything about what force or forces brought down the three World Trade Center buildings, what hit the Pentagon or caused the explosion, the flying skills or lack thereof of the alleged hijackers, whether the airliner crashed in Pennsylvania or was shot down, whether cell phone calls made at the altitudes could be received, or any other debated aspect of the controversy.
You only have to know two things. One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad. Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs. It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation. Read the rest at http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-911-paul-craig-roberts/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n order to understand the improbability of the government’s explanation of 9/11, it is not necessary to know anything about what force or forces brought down the three World Trade Center buildings, what hit the Pentagon or caused the explosion, the flying skills or lack thereof of the alleged hijackers, whether the airliner crashed in Pennsylvania or was shot down, whether cell phone calls made at the altitudes could be received, or any other debated aspect of the controversy. You only have to know two things. One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad. Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs. It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation. Read the rest at http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-911-paul-craig-roberts/ just because some people don't believe it to be true doesn't make it any less true...like i told JB, when all your looking for is lies, that's all you'll see... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n order to understand the improbability of the government’s explanation of 9/11, it is not necessary to know anything about what force or forces brought down the three World Trade Center buildings, what hit the Pentagon or caused the explosion, the flying skills or lack thereof of the alleged hijackers, whether the airliner crashed in Pennsylvania or was shot down, whether cell phone calls made at the altitudes could be received, or any other debated aspect of the controversy. You only have to know two things. One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad. Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs. It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation. Read the rest at http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-911-paul-craig-roberts/ CT Extraordinaire! Come on Best! Disprove our Physics if you can! And your Pauly,of course is an Expoit?
Imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone: BUSH: So, what's the plan again? CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down. RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion. CHENEY: No, Don, we won't. RUMSFELD: We won't? CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers al-Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq. RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack? CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Don. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around. BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists? RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs, and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed, and needlessly complicate everything! CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of nowhere somewhere in rural Pennsylvania. RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere. CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile. BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile? CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by. BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers? CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane. BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right? CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here? RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York. BUSH: Oh, okay. RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do, and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork, and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them. BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world, and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo? CHENEY: Like pulling teeth! RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington DC fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI-5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose! BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? ****, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices? RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"! ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah! The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement Why the "9/11 Truth" movement makes the Left Behind series read like Shakespeare. http://www.alternet.org/story/42181?page=3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your comments are rather comical for such a serious topic.
Your fantasy conversation does not match well against this logic n order to understand the improbability of the government’s explanation of 9/11, it is not necessary to know anything about what force or forces brought down the three World Trade Center buildings, what hit the Pentagon or caused the explosion, the flying skills or lack thereof of the alleged hijackers, whether the airliner crashed in Pennsylvania or was shot down, whether cell phone calls made at the altitudes could be received, or any other debated aspect of the controversy. You only have to know two things. One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad. Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs. It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-911-paul-craig-roberts/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Thu 04/11/13 01:41 PM
|
|
Sunday, November 25, 2007
87% of 9/11 Truthers Blame "Mainstream Media" for Their Beliefs in 9/11 Conspiracies New Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll shows increase in belief in conspiracy theories caused by mainstream media. (BNN - November 24, 2007 - New York City.) A Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll of 811 adult residents of the United States shows nearly two-thirds of Americans think it is possible that some federal officials had specific warnings of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Eighty-seven percent of those who harbor such suspicions blame the mainstream media for "brainwashing" them into believing in various conspiracy theories. The poll also found that 44% of Americans believe some in the government knew of the Kennedy assassination in advance; and 35% believe the government is hiding the existence of flying saucers from them. An earlier poll showed that 71% of Americans believe television was their best source for news about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Asked to comment on the poll, Dylan Avery said, "This poll confirms that the mainstream media has been brainwashing us to believe in 9/11 conspiracies, treating us all like 'sheeple.'" http://911booger.blogspot.ch/2007/11/87-of-911-truthers-blame-mainstream.html 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunday, November 25, 2007 87% of 9/11 Truthers Blame "Mainstream Media" for Their Beliefs in 9/11 Conspiracies New Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll shows increase in belief in conspiracy theories caused by mainstream media. (BNN - November 24, 2007 - New York City.) A Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll of 811 adult residents of the United States shows nearly two-thirds of Americans think it is possible that some federal officials had specific warnings of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Eighty-seven percent of those who harbor such suspicions blame the mainstream media for "brainwashing" them into believing in various conspiracy theories. The poll also found that 44% of Americans believe some in the government knew of the Kennedy assassination in advance; and 35% believe the government is hiding the existence of flying saucers from them. An earlier poll showed that 71% of Americans believe television was their best source for news about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Asked to comment on the poll, Dylan Avery said, "This poll confirms that the mainstream media has been brainwashing us to believe in 9/11 conspiracies, treating us all like 'sheeple.'" http://911booger.blogspot.ch/2007/11/87-of-911-truthers-blame-mainstream.html
i'm sure your buddy Alex Jones has nothing to do with it either... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't help but wonder...If you were hit with debris during 9/11, do you believe you would be alright?
Building 7 wasn't hit with normal debris, it was hit with an effin' building called the North Tower. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Thu 04/11/13 02:44 PM
|
|
i guess the 30 ton steel supports falling from 85 stories high (1300 feet) slamming into the side of building 7 had nothing to do with it either... That's right according to NIST. Building 7 collapsed only from the fire damage. They report that even if no debris had hit building 7, the fire would have caused the building to collapse. However, the debris is apparently what started the fire. (Apparently, and allegedly.) So, sorry. I just find that hard to believe. thats what they said... i'm not real sure why building 7 is so important to the CT'ers anyway, whether they did it intentionally or not, what does it matter? with the damage done to the complex as a whole, that building would have been torn down anyway... I'll explain it to you then. 1. Building 7 is important because it was not hit by a plane, which is the excuse/cause given for the collapse of the twin towers. 2. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it collapsed anyway, and they are claiming that it was not demolished on purpose so now they have to try to convince people that the fire caused the building to fall. (They are not very convincing) If it had been only the twin towers that fell, it would have been a whole lot easier to successfully sell the story that the reason for the buildings collapse was that they were hit by planes driven by terrorists. BUT building 7, also fell into its footprint in a very neat and professional manner that resembled a controlled demolition and it was NOT HIT BY A PLANE. So somebody had a lot of splainin' to do. And they got together all their writers and 'splainers that are on the government payroll and they took a while, but eventually they came up with some explanations that a few people bought lock stock and barrel, but by the time they did that, the conspiracy theorist had over run the Internet. Clearly the propaganda 'splainers need to be quicker on the draw for any future terrorists events they want to have. They are clearly out gunned by the conspiracy theorists. ok, in that statement, you had 2 actual facts: Building 7 was not hit by a plane it collapsed anyway the rest is mostly observational viewpoints...your looking for reasons to prove them wrong, and skipping the things that could say they're right... critical thinking would be to look at both viewpoints from equal and different angles... i can see where building 7 is a little fishy, but it makes no difference when they tore it down, no life was lost when it fell... Actually it does matter because it illustrates how they are willing to lie about something if it suits their agenda to do so. If they could feed you a lie about building 7, what makes you think they wouldn't lie about the Trade Center towers, or for that matter just about anything else? On its' own that they tore down Building 7 is pretty innocuous, buildings are demolished like that routinely, and the idea that they decided to tear this one down because of what happened to it is somewhat believable. BUT when you look at how they went out of their way to say that wasn't what happened and tried to spin it as coming down simply from fire....that combined with the other events of the day raises a whole host of questions. So it DOES matter how and when they tore it down when you factor in all of that, and that's on top of the fact that to implode a building, ANY building, it takes time to set things up inside, you gotta plant the explosives and get everything ready ahead of time. You can't just do that in less than a day. They would have had to had this planned long before. The whole thing just brings about more questions than it does answers, it may seem insignificant on its' own but when put together with everything else it becomes quite important. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i guess the 30 ton steel supports falling from 85 stories high (1300 feet) slamming into the side of building 7 had nothing to do with it either... That's right according to NIST. Building 7 collapsed only from the fire damage. They report that even if no debris had hit building 7, the fire would have caused the building to collapse. However, the debris is apparently what started the fire. (Apparently, and allegedly.) So, sorry. I just find that hard to believe. thats what they said... i'm not real sure why building 7 is so important to the CT'ers anyway, whether they did it intentionally or not, what does it matter? with the damage done to the complex as a whole, that building would have been torn down anyway... I'll explain it to you then. 1. Building 7 is important because it was not hit by a plane, which is the excuse/cause given for the collapse of the twin towers. 2. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it collapsed anyway, and they are claiming that it was not demolished on purpose so now they have to try to convince people that the fire caused the building to fall. (They are not very convincing) If it had been only the twin towers that fell, it would have been a whole lot easier to successfully sell the story that the reason for the buildings collapse was that they were hit by planes driven by terrorists. BUT building 7, also fell into its footprint in a very neat and professional manner that resembled a controlled demolition and it was NOT HIT BY A PLANE. So somebody had a lot of splainin' to do. And they got together all their writers and 'splainers that are on the government payroll and they took a while, but eventually they came up with some explanations that a few people bought lock stock and barrel, but by the time they did that, the conspiracy theorist had over run the Internet. Clearly the propaganda 'splainers need to be quicker on the draw for any future terrorists events they want to have. They are clearly out gunned by the conspiracy theorists. ok, in that statement, you had 2 actual facts: Building 7 was not hit by a plane it collapsed anyway the rest is mostly observational viewpoints...your looking for reasons to prove them wrong, and skipping the things that could say they're right... critical thinking would be to look at both viewpoints from equal and different angles... i can see where building 7 is a little fishy, but it makes no difference when they tore it down, no life was lost when it fell... Oh so because you feel that because no one was killed in building 7 (and I am not so sure that is true.) -- then the fact that it may have been demolished on purpose makes no difference?? And NO I am not looking at "reasons to prove them wrong" I am hoping they would have a more convincing explanation of why building 7 collapsed the way it did, when it did etc. and why they knew it was going to fall hours before it did, if this was such a rare case. "Critical thinking" should have been done by the investigators. It would have been ordinary FIRE CODE procedure to LOOK FOR SIGNS OF ANY EXPLOSIVES. That is protocol. AND YET THEY DID NOT EVEN LOOK. They decided in advance not find any evidence of explosives so they did not look. Evidence of explosives would have pointed to A HUGE CONSPIRACY and it would negate the idea that this whole thing was simply a terrorists attack with planes and nothing else. Also, building 7 was the headquarters of the CIA and other government offices and held crucial evidence and files that would have been a huge help in the investigation of the attack. If only building 7 had fallen, as it did, and there had been no planes and no attack, they would have investigated it as normal and looked for explosives.... would they not? Or would they have tried to claim that a fire caused the building to collapse in its footprint at near free fall speed? Absurd. They can use all the scientific double talk and gobbled deegooook they want but I don't think anyone would have believed that story. As it was, everyone was so shocked and stunned by the twin towers and the loss of life and the planes and the spectacle of the towers falling, no one much cared about why building 7 fell or what classified files got destroyed in it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 04/11/13 03:00 PM
|
|
Except a controlled demolition is a scientific impossibility...
Not at all. They had 6 to eight weeks to plant charges and a total lack of any security in those buildings. This is the age of technology and who knows how they took those buildings down, but it sure wasn't an airplane or a fire.
Nope and neither do you. And neither of us have a clue what kind of classified explosives the government is developing either. Everything they do is classified, and their 9-11 investigations and evidence was also classified, and they carted off all the evidence long before they ever formed an investigative team. They destroyed evidence. The government (sorry, I mean the globalists criminal Cabal) has very classified new weapons and they are experimenting with them in third world countries. I think they used them on 9-11 too. So who knows what kind of explosives may have been used? Too much is classified, and I don't trust those powers that hide behind that. All we have is THEIR WORD FOR IT. And we know they have already proven that their word is not worth anything. THE ALWAYS LIE. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i guess the 30 ton steel supports falling from 85 stories high (1300 feet) slamming into the side of building 7 had nothing to do with it either... That's right according to NIST. Building 7 collapsed only from the fire damage. They report that even if no debris had hit building 7, the fire would have caused the building to collapse. However, the debris is apparently what started the fire. (Apparently, and allegedly.) So, sorry. I just find that hard to believe. thats what they said... i'm not real sure why building 7 is so important to the CT'ers anyway, whether they did it intentionally or not, what does it matter? with the damage done to the complex as a whole, that building would have been torn down anyway... I'll explain it to you then. 1. Building 7 is important because it was not hit by a plane, which is the excuse/cause given for the collapse of the twin towers. 2. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it collapsed anyway, and they are claiming that it was not demolished on purpose so now they have to try to convince people that the fire caused the building to fall. (They are not very convincing) If it had been only the twin towers that fell, it would have been a whole lot easier to successfully sell the story that the reason for the buildings collapse was that they were hit by planes driven by terrorists. BUT building 7, also fell into its footprint in a very neat and professional manner that resembled a controlled demolition and it was NOT HIT BY A PLANE. So somebody had a lot of splainin' to do. And they got together all their writers and 'splainers that are on the government payroll and they took a while, but eventually they came up with some explanations that a few people bought lock stock and barrel, but by the time they did that, the conspiracy theorist had over run the Internet. Clearly the propaganda 'splainers need to be quicker on the draw for any future terrorists events they want to have. They are clearly out gunned by the conspiracy theorists. ok, in that statement, you had 2 actual facts: Building 7 was not hit by a plane it collapsed anyway the rest is mostly observational viewpoints...your looking for reasons to prove them wrong, and skipping the things that could say they're right... critical thinking would be to look at both viewpoints from equal and different angles... i can see where building 7 is a little fishy, but it makes no difference when they tore it down, no life was lost when it fell... Actually it does matter because it illustrates how they are willing to lie about something if it suits their agenda to do so. If they could feed you a lie about building 7, what makes you think they wouldn't lie about the Trade Center towers, or for that matter just about anything else? On its' own that they tore down Building 7 is pretty innocuous, buildings are demolished like that routinely, and the idea that they decided to tear this one down because of what happened to it is somewhat believable. BUT when you look at how they went out of their way to say that wasn't what happened and tried to spin it as coming down simply from fire....that combined with the other events of the day raises a whole host of questions. So it DOES matter how and when they tore it down when you factor in all of that, and that's on top of the fact that to implode a building, ANY building, it takes time to set things up inside, you gotta plant the explosives and get everything ready ahead of time. You can't just do that in less than a day. They would have had to had this planned long before. The whole thing just brings about more questions than it does answers, it may seem insignificant on its' own but when put together with everything else it becomes quite important. sorry, just don't see it that way... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As it was, everyone was so shocked and stunned by the twin towers and the loss of life and the planes and the spectacle of the towers falling, no one much cared about why building 7 fell or what classified files got destroyed in it. They even tried to cover up it even happened in the official story. For something as simple as a demolition, they sure went to great lengths to deny that fact. Like I said, their handling of it brings more questions than answers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Thu 04/11/13 03:13 PM
|
|
i guess the 30 ton steel supports falling from 85 stories high (1300 feet) slamming into the side of building 7 had nothing to do with it either... That's right according to NIST. Building 7 collapsed only from the fire damage. They report that even if no debris had hit building 7, the fire would have caused the building to collapse. However, the debris is apparently what started the fire. (Apparently, and allegedly.) So, sorry. I just find that hard to believe. thats what they said... i'm not real sure why building 7 is so important to the CT'ers anyway, whether they did it intentionally or not, what does it matter? with the damage done to the complex as a whole, that building would have been torn down anyway... I'll explain it to you then. 1. Building 7 is important because it was not hit by a plane, which is the excuse/cause given for the collapse of the twin towers. 2. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it collapsed anyway, and they are claiming that it was not demolished on purpose so now they have to try to convince people that the fire caused the building to fall. (They are not very convincing) If it had been only the twin towers that fell, it would have been a whole lot easier to successfully sell the story that the reason for the buildings collapse was that they were hit by planes driven by terrorists. BUT building 7, also fell into its footprint in a very neat and professional manner that resembled a controlled demolition and it was NOT HIT BY A PLANE. So somebody had a lot of splainin' to do. And they got together all their writers and 'splainers that are on the government payroll and they took a while, but eventually they came up with some explanations that a few people bought lock stock and barrel, but by the time they did that, the conspiracy theorist had over run the Internet. Clearly the propaganda 'splainers need to be quicker on the draw for any future terrorists events they want to have. They are clearly out gunned by the conspiracy theorists. ok, in that statement, you had 2 actual facts: Building 7 was not hit by a plane it collapsed anyway the rest is mostly observational viewpoints...your looking for reasons to prove them wrong, and skipping the things that could say they're right... critical thinking would be to look at both viewpoints from equal and different angles... i can see where building 7 is a little fishy, but it makes no difference when they tore it down, no life was lost when it fell... Actually it does matter because it illustrates how they are willing to lie about something if it suits their agenda to do so. If they could feed you a lie about building 7, what makes you think they wouldn't lie about the Trade Center towers, or for that matter just about anything else? On its' own that they tore down Building 7 is pretty innocuous, buildings are demolished like that routinely, and the idea that they decided to tear this one down because of what happened to it is somewhat believable. BUT when you look at how they went out of their way to say that wasn't what happened and tried to spin it as coming down simply from fire....that combined with the other events of the day raises a whole host of questions. So it DOES matter how and when they tore it down when you factor in all of that, and that's on top of the fact that to implode a building, ANY building, it takes time to set things up inside, you gotta plant the explosives and get everything ready ahead of time. You can't just do that in less than a day. They would have had to had this planned long before. The whole thing just brings about more questions than it does answers, it may seem insignificant on its' own but when put together with everything else it becomes quite important. sorry, just don't see it that way... I can tell you don't, or maybe don't want to see it, but it doesn't change things. Regardless of your personal opinion of it, how they dealt with the situation pretty much speaks for it itself, as well the fact AGAIN that the building would have had to have been rigged up long before. There's no way they could have gotten it ready to be pulled in hours, just couldn't have done it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i guess the 30 ton steel supports falling from 85 stories high (1300 feet) slamming into the side of building 7 had nothing to do with it either... That's right according to NIST. Building 7 collapsed only from the fire damage. They report that even if no debris had hit building 7, the fire would have caused the building to collapse. However, the debris is apparently what started the fire. (Apparently, and allegedly.) So, sorry. I just find that hard to believe. thats what they said... i'm not real sure why building 7 is so important to the CT'ers anyway, whether they did it intentionally or not, what does it matter? with the damage done to the complex as a whole, that building would have been torn down anyway... I'll explain it to you then. 1. Building 7 is important because it was not hit by a plane, which is the excuse/cause given for the collapse of the twin towers. 2. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it collapsed anyway, and they are claiming that it was not demolished on purpose so now they have to try to convince people that the fire caused the building to fall. (They are not very convincing) If it had been only the twin towers that fell, it would have been a whole lot easier to successfully sell the story that the reason for the buildings collapse was that they were hit by planes driven by terrorists. BUT building 7, also fell into its footprint in a very neat and professional manner that resembled a controlled demolition and it was NOT HIT BY A PLANE. So somebody had a lot of splainin' to do. And they got together all their writers and 'splainers that are on the government payroll and they took a while, but eventually they came up with some explanations that a few people bought lock stock and barrel, but by the time they did that, the conspiracy theorist had over run the Internet. Clearly the propaganda 'splainers need to be quicker on the draw for any future terrorists events they want to have. They are clearly out gunned by the conspiracy theorists. ok, in that statement, you had 2 actual facts: Building 7 was not hit by a plane it collapsed anyway the rest is mostly observational viewpoints...your looking for reasons to prove them wrong, and skipping the things that could say they're right... critical thinking would be to look at both viewpoints from equal and different angles... i can see where building 7 is a little fishy, but it makes no difference when they tore it down, no life was lost when it fell... Oh so because you feel that because no one was killed in building 7 (and I am not so sure that is true.) -- then the fact that it may have been demolished on purpose makes no difference?? And NO I am not looking at "reasons to prove them wrong" I am hoping they would have a more convincing explanation of why building 7 collapsed the way it did, when it did etc. and why they knew it was going to fall hours before it did, if this was such a rare case. "Critical thinking" should have been done by the investigators. It would have been ordinary FIRE CODE procedure to LOOK FOR SIGNS OF ANY EXPLOSIVES. That is protocol. AND YET THEY DID NOT EVEN LOOK. They decided in advance not find any evidence of explosives so they did not look. Evidence of explosives would have pointed to A HUGE CONSPIRACY and it would negate the idea that this whole thing was simply a terrorists attack with planes and nothing else. Also, building 7 was the headquarters of the CIA and other government offices and held crucial evidence and files that would have been a huge help in the investigation of the attack. If only building 7 had fallen, as it did, and there had been no planes and no attack, they would have investigated it as normal and looked for explosives.... would they not? Or would they have tried to claim that a fire caused the building to collapse in its footprint at near free fall speed? Absurd. They can use all the scientific double talk and gobbled deegooook they want but I don't think anyone would have believed that story. As it was, everyone was so shocked and stunned by the twin towers and the loss of life and the planes and the spectacle of the towers falling, no one much cared about why building 7 fell or what classified files got destroyed in it. 
see, there's no facts in what your are saying, just speculations... there's a CIA office in every major city, so what? that particular CIA office had some kind of "evil, secret" documents that none of the others had? lol, you have it all mapped out up there, huh...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't help but wonder...If you were hit with debris during 9/11, do you believe you would be alright? Building 7 wasn't hit with normal debris, it was hit with an effin' building called the North Tower. I should change the color, people like shiny things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Thu 04/11/13 03:25 PM
|
|
i guess the 30 ton steel supports falling from 85 stories high (1300 feet) slamming into the side of building 7 had nothing to do with it either... That's right according to NIST. Building 7 collapsed only from the fire damage. They report that even if no debris had hit building 7, the fire would have caused the building to collapse. However, the debris is apparently what started the fire. (Apparently, and allegedly.) So, sorry. I just find that hard to believe. thats what they said... i'm not real sure why building 7 is so important to the CT'ers anyway, whether they did it intentionally or not, what does it matter? with the damage done to the complex as a whole, that building would have been torn down anyway... I'll explain it to you then. 1. Building 7 is important because it was not hit by a plane, which is the excuse/cause given for the collapse of the twin towers. 2. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it collapsed anyway, and they are claiming that it was not demolished on purpose so now they have to try to convince people that the fire caused the building to fall. (They are not very convincing) If it had been only the twin towers that fell, it would have been a whole lot easier to successfully sell the story that the reason for the buildings collapse was that they were hit by planes driven by terrorists. BUT building 7, also fell into its footprint in a very neat and professional manner that resembled a controlled demolition and it was NOT HIT BY A PLANE. So somebody had a lot of splainin' to do. And they got together all their writers and 'splainers that are on the government payroll and they took a while, but eventually they came up with some explanations that a few people bought lock stock and barrel, but by the time they did that, the conspiracy theorist had over run the Internet. Clearly the propaganda 'splainers need to be quicker on the draw for any future terrorists events they want to have. They are clearly out gunned by the conspiracy theorists. ok, in that statement, you had 2 actual facts: Building 7 was not hit by a plane it collapsed anyway the rest is mostly observational viewpoints...your looking for reasons to prove them wrong, and skipping the things that could say they're right... critical thinking would be to look at both viewpoints from equal and different angles... i can see where building 7 is a little fishy, but it makes no difference when they tore it down, no life was lost when it fell... Actually it does matter because it illustrates how they are willing to lie about something if it suits their agenda to do so. If they could feed you a lie about building 7, what makes you think they wouldn't lie about the Trade Center towers, or for that matter just about anything else? On its' own that they tore down Building 7 is pretty innocuous, buildings are demolished like that routinely, and the idea that they decided to tear this one down because of what happened to it is somewhat believable. BUT when you look at how they went out of their way to say that wasn't what happened and tried to spin it as coming down simply from fire....that combined with the other events of the day raises a whole host of questions. So it DOES matter how and when they tore it down when you factor in all of that, and that's on top of the fact that to implode a building, ANY building, it takes time to set things up inside, you gotta plant the explosives and get everything ready ahead of time. You can't just do that in less than a day. They would have had to had this planned long before. The whole thing just brings about more questions than it does answers, it may seem insignificant on its' own but when put together with everything else it becomes quite important. sorry, just don't see it that way... I can tell you don't, or maybe don't want to see it, but it doesn't change things. Regardless of your personal opinion of it, how they dealt with the situation pretty much speaks for it itself, as well the fact AGAIN that the building would have had to have been rigged up long before. There's no way they could have gotten it ready to be pulled in hours, just couldn't have done it. since there is ZERO evidence of any type of explosive being used there, I'd rather use my thoughts on other aspects of it... BTW, thats not a fact... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't help but wonder...If you were hit with debris during 9/11, do you believe you would be alright? Building 7 wasn't hit with normal debris, it was hit with an effin' building called the North Tower. I should change the color, people like shiny things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Thu 04/11/13 03:30 PM
|
|
i guess the 30 ton steel supports falling from 85 stories high (1300 feet) slamming into the side of building 7 had nothing to do with it either... That's right according to NIST. Building 7 collapsed only from the fire damage. They report that even if no debris had hit building 7, the fire would have caused the building to collapse. However, the debris is apparently what started the fire. (Apparently, and allegedly.) So, sorry. I just find that hard to believe. thats what they said... i'm not real sure why building 7 is so important to the CT'ers anyway, whether they did it intentionally or not, what does it matter? with the damage done to the complex as a whole, that building would have been torn down anyway... I'll explain it to you then. 1. Building 7 is important because it was not hit by a plane, which is the excuse/cause given for the collapse of the twin towers. 2. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it collapsed anyway, and they are claiming that it was not demolished on purpose so now they have to try to convince people that the fire caused the building to fall. (They are not very convincing) If it had been only the twin towers that fell, it would have been a whole lot easier to successfully sell the story that the reason for the buildings collapse was that they were hit by planes driven by terrorists. BUT building 7, also fell into its footprint in a very neat and professional manner that resembled a controlled demolition and it was NOT HIT BY A PLANE. So somebody had a lot of splainin' to do. And they got together all their writers and 'splainers that are on the government payroll and they took a while, but eventually they came up with some explanations that a few people bought lock stock and barrel, but by the time they did that, the conspiracy theorist had over run the Internet. Clearly the propaganda 'splainers need to be quicker on the draw for any future terrorists events they want to have. They are clearly out gunned by the conspiracy theorists. ok, in that statement, you had 2 actual facts: Building 7 was not hit by a plane it collapsed anyway the rest is mostly observational viewpoints...your looking for reasons to prove them wrong, and skipping the things that could say they're right... critical thinking would be to look at both viewpoints from equal and different angles... i can see where building 7 is a little fishy, but it makes no difference when they tore it down, no life was lost when it fell... Actually it does matter because it illustrates how they are willing to lie about something if it suits their agenda to do so. If they could feed you a lie about building 7, what makes you think they wouldn't lie about the Trade Center towers, or for that matter just about anything else? On its' own that they tore down Building 7 is pretty innocuous, buildings are demolished like that routinely, and the idea that they decided to tear this one down because of what happened to it is somewhat believable. BUT when you look at how they went out of their way to say that wasn't what happened and tried to spin it as coming down simply from fire....that combined with the other events of the day raises a whole host of questions. So it DOES matter how and when they tore it down when you factor in all of that, and that's on top of the fact that to implode a building, ANY building, it takes time to set things up inside, you gotta plant the explosives and get everything ready ahead of time. You can't just do that in less than a day. They would have had to had this planned long before. The whole thing just brings about more questions than it does answers, it may seem insignificant on its' own but when put together with everything else it becomes quite important. sorry, just don't see it that way... I can tell you don't, or maybe don't want to see it, but it doesn't change things. Regardless of your personal opinion of it, how they dealt with the situation pretty much speaks for it itself, as well the fact AGAIN that the building would have had to have been rigged up long before. There's no way they could have gotten it ready to be pulled in hours, just couldn't have done it. since there is ZERO evidence of any type of explosive being used there, I'd rather use my thoughts on other aspects of it... BTW, thats not a fact... But you basically admitted that the they tore the thing down no? How the hell else is it gonna come down that way??? And you REALLY think that they could have planted explosives in hours? Less than that even since they wouldn't have even known they wanted to tear it down till just before? Yeah that makes sense.......come on use your brain I'm begging you! |
|
|
|
|
