9/11 Conspiracies(threads merged)

[SolidLuigi]

-the maximum resistance issue(has 1 sec frame intervals and a graph which clearly show the building is accelerating as it falls which means it is meeting no resistance, in order for there to be no resistance the steel columns must be cut)

Actually, that is just not true. The resistance just has to be less than the force that is pulling the building down. There can still be resistance. The building didn't fall at free-fall speed, so there had to be some resistance.

Please let us know if you are using accredited knowledge of physics and gravity and structure or if this is your own personal theory. If this is a personal theory then I take it into account, but I will have choose to agree with the scientific studies of a well established community of architects and engineers. Nothing personal, I just wouldn't expect you to believe my personal argument if a community of experts contradicted it. In the video there are frame by frame still shots, the building is continually increasing in speed as it falls. If no damage was done to any lower parts of the buildings, the main core which was so much heavier and sturdier than the top section that fell would offer at least some resistance which would in turn cause at least a bump in the increasing speed of the fall, there is none which shows something happened to the lower section of the building which compromised its ability to offer resistance to the top section.

-the TRUTH that no steel skyscraper has ever fallen due to fire(he names a bunch of skyscrapers that had more floors on fire and a lot longer burning time and no collapse, all are back in use now with only minor renovation, no structural renovation)

Yeah but it's not only the fire that caused the buildings to fall, it probably had something to do with the fucking planes that flew inside too. The fire wasn't the only factor.

Mr. Gage explains how all groups, FEMA, NIST, and many independent architects ALL agree that all though big, the crash of a plane had little effect on the integrity of the structure. You can tell because the buildings hardly budge as the size of a Boeing is very small compared to the size of the towers. Architect Les Robinson said when he built the towers, they were built to withstand the impact of a plane, specifically a Boeing 707, the biggest jet at the time. The NIST report puts all blame for structural failures on the fires.

To argue that because it has never happened it isn't possible is silly.

I never said it was in no way possible, it is just very very very very unlikely since it has never happened before. So basing the entire investigation on that highly unlikely situation plus the many inconsistencies we find makes it all seem wrong.

this is just after 30 mins. I will watch the rest. I hope you will too. I'm not asking you to believe everything, but I'm trying to show you another side than your own.

Problem is that we've already seen way to many posts by crazies about the other side. There is just as much credibility to 9/11 conspiracy as to the moonlanding-conspiracy, actually even less.

How you can dismiss this as another video as a crazy person without even looking at it? Don't compare this to something as trivial as the moon-landing conspiracy. There were actual lives lost in this, this was a pretext for War and the Patriot Act which is a blatant attack on our civil rights. This is an accredited and successful steel high-rise architect who painstakingly investigated and put together this whole presentation which is full of evidence that would be admissible in court. It would be admissible because all the video is acknowledged real video from eyewitnesses and video from news channels such as CNN and FOX. Also all quotes and findings are sourced to eyewitnesses or credible independent and government agencies that were involved with the towers, clean up or otherwise. You can't just blow off REAL evidence and studies just because earlier you saw a bunch of crazies on videos.

So by your logic, since many crazies who based the attacks on numbers or secret societies or the devil etc came out with stupid videos right away which were complete garbage, that eliminates all possibilities that, at a later date, someone with accredited knowledge of buildings could investigate, research and put together a complete and sound presentation complete with graphics, video, charts, statements, and other intelligent and acceptable forms of presenting and argument? Don't dismiss a whole side of an argument dealing with the biggest event in our time that shaped and is still shaping the future of our country because you saw some crazy videos earlier on.

and since Mr. Gage is saying all the same things I did in earlier posts, and most importantly he did all the work of getting sources and evidence haha, I'll just refer you to his presentation.

You have to post it here though. We're not going to look for the evidence and refute it, as that would be an impossible task and I have better things to do.

So where is the rule that I have to post it all here? You don't have to go LOOK for the evidence because I presented a link that is the taped presentation, the only looking you have to do is looking at the link and clicking it. Everything is presented in a clear and concise argument, the reason it is so long is because there is so much stuff contradicting the 9/11 commission along with the laws of physics! The reason I didn't list everything in the video here is because it would be the longest thread that no one would read cause no one wants to read that much. I figured it was better to link to the video because, A. It's easier and in my opinion I prefer to WATCH a presentation instead of READ it. Also, Mr. Gage is a professional architect and did all of the investigating for the presentation. He can more accurately present all the information than I can. I could repeat everything word for word but that would be asinine when you can just click a link. What makes looking for evidence and refuting it impossible? That is what you have to do to prove a point. You can say that the 9/11 commission already stated their findings so I'm the one who has to prove a point. I understand that, therefore I am presenting all this information, now you have to refute or at least acknowledge my findings to make it a fair and just argument. See, this absolute "oh it's impossible" is a way of brushing off arguments so you don't have to deal with them. It is another excuse to ease your conscience to make it able to dismiss the video as crazy without even looking at it in the glaring reality of all these facts and evidence. Oh and you must be doing some very important things if you have time to pick apart my argument bit by bit in a reply but not watch a legit presentation on the most important event of our time.

Now the ball is in your court, here is a logical argument, you can choose to just blow it off and not even watch it and not give a fair chance

The ball is in your court. I have no desire to watch a long video again to just refute all the evidence again. You can post the evidence and explain it, but I'm not going to waste all my time by listening to some twat on a video.

We are not doing your research for you, dude.

No you aren't researching for me, the research has been done, that's the point of a presentation. It's a culmination of all the research presented to you to judge, you just watch it and listen to it. The ball was in my court, and I passed it to you with this information contained in the presentation. I'm sorry you don't have the desire to watch a long video, even though you can pause and come back to it whenever you want, it's free. I can't make you watch it, I'm just saying that if you want to consider yourself intelligent in believing what the 9/11 commission says then you have to see both sides of the argument, seeing only one side, believing it and refusing to see the other side is a sign of ignorance. Also, how do you know you are going to refute everything again? Another example of the idea you have absolute knowledge which is impossible unless you are omniscient. You will not be wasting your time on a video if you learn about what my side is saying, because either A. you will start to question things in light of all this evidence or B. you will refute things and be even stronger in your conviction with definitive examples to base it on instead of calling people twats. I was waiting for someone to call this guy a name. Please explain to me why he is a twat? Because more than likely he knows more information on steel skyscraper structure than you? (i'm assuming you aren't a skyscraper architect.) Because he put together a clear and respectable presentation that is not full of baseless stats and comments? it is all documented and backed up, alot of the time many of his points are corroborated by FEMA or NIST or the EPA. It's not home recorded, he is speaking at a college infront of an auditorium of people, this is about as official and far from crazies as you can get.

Just watch 5 mins of it, or skip to a random part in the middle, there is no "filler" in his presentation, he doesn't go off on tangents about politics or whatever. It is evidence laid out for you to judge. He has a great quote from Martin Luther King Jr. which is very appropriate for all of you who refuse to even watch 5 mins of it because he must be a crazy, or i dont have time, or i dont feel like it. The quote is, "A time comes when silence is betrayal."

link: http://911blogger.com/node/10025

Why wont you watch it? are you scared your conscience might speak up inside your head?

[Snorri1234]

Why wont you watch it? are you scared your conscience might speak up inside your head?

IT'S TWO HOURS LONG!!!!!

I can't be arsed to sit through two hours of presentation making notes and writing down what doesn't make sense. Call me lazy, but really I just don't have the time for that.
If it was so simple, why don't just post all the points he makes?

[SolidLuigi]

heavycola, I feel I have been arguing rationally, no name calling, and not basing it just on a feeling. Please view the presentation I have been linking, it has hard evidence of explosives which you asked to see if anyone had them. please watch it

http://911blogger.com/node/10025

Also Silverstein who HAPPENED to buy the towers 7 weeks before 9/11, in a deal that any realtor would tell you is a horrible deal from the buyers standpoint due to the fact he had to tear down the buildings to rebuild more profitable ones if he ever wanted to make money on the deal which the amount to dismantle, de-asbestos(is that a word? haha), and demolish was estimated in the billions (the towers were a money pit by the way and the previous ownership had many requested controlled demolitions denied by the city because the amount of asbestos present in the building that would be in the dust cloud wouldn't be safe), who also HAPPENED to take out a rare "Act of Terrorism" insurance policy on the buildings which when they did fall netted him 7 billion dollars, and a free demolition by the way.

I don't claim he is behind it, but there are very suspicious circumstances

coincidences upon coincidences become more and more unlikely.

"There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right." -MLK jr.

[Snorri1234]

Please let us know if you are using accredited knowledge of physics and gravity and structure or if this is your own personal theory. If this is a personal theory then I take it into account, but I will have choose to agree with the scientific studies of a well established community of architects and engineers. Nothing personal, I just wouldn't expect you to believe my personal argument if a community of experts contradicted it. In the video there are frame by frame still shots, the building is continually increasing in speed as it falls. If no damage was done to any lower parts of the buildings, the main core which was so much heavier and sturdier than the top section that fell would offer at least some resistance which would in turn cause at least a bump in the increasing speed of the fall, there is none which shows something happened to the lower section of the building which compromised its ability to offer resistance to the top section.

The very fact that the building was still there basically proves there was resistance. The part of the building where the collapse began didn't fall at freefall speed, as that is impossible.

I mean, it's not unnatural for something to increase in speed when falling.

Mr. Gage explains how all groups, FEMA, NIST, and many independent architects ALL agree that all though big, the crash of a plane had little effect on the integrity of the structure. You can tell because the buildings hardly budge as the size of a Boeing is very small compared to the size of the towers. Architect Les Robinson said when he built the towers, they were built to withstand the impact of a plane, specifically a Boeing 707, the biggest jet at the time. The NIST report puts all blame for structural failures on the fires.

Oh yes I know they built it to withstand a boeing 707, but the ones that hit the towers were bigger. The towers are also designed so that if they collapse they fall inwards to not destroy other buildings.
And you are also forgetting that the fuel from the planes could've made the fires way hotter than usual.

[DaGip]

Evidence:
Reptilian Overlords

I hope you're joking
You might as well treat the Da Vinci Code as History

David Icke is a genius!

[SolidLuigi]

Why wont you watch it? are you scared your conscience might speak up inside your head?

IT'S TWO HOURS LONG!!!!!

I can't be arsed to sit through two hours of presentation making notes and writing down what doesn't make sense. Call me lazy, but really I just don't have the time for that.
If it was so simple, why don't just post all the points he makes?

Wow all you can reply to in the entire post is about the length of the presentation?

It's simple in how he lays out the facts.. The fact that it IS 2 hours long shows there are so many facts that I would take me forever to present them to you, describing them with all the detail that he does. In other words, he presents a fact, then backs it up with logic. If I just list them all which will take long enough, then might not see the logic that goes along with the fact.

You don't have to take notes, just sit and watch and go through it in your head as he is presenting. If you have problems with certain things, then you can go back and take notes on certain points. Really though I don't need you to come back and refute stuff, I just want you to see it for the sake of balanced argument. I'm just trying to pass information out to people so everyone can be well informed, then make your own judgement.

Also like I said, just watch a couple mins of it, surely you have 5 or ten minutes to spare. Then if you get bored tonight or another night, watch 10 more mins. My point is what is there to lose? Yes I know we all have obligations like work, school, family etc. I don't expect people to drop everything and watch 2 hours straight cause I say so. All I'm saying is look at it when you have some downtime or time to kill, and look at it with a logical mind come to terms with yourself about what you see and what you believe, I'm not demanding refutes and rebuttles here, I'm just trying to spread knowledge.

[SolidLuigi]

Please let us know if you are using accredited knowledge of physics and gravity and structure or if this is your own personal theory. If this is a personal theory then I take it into account, but I will have choose to agree with the scientific studies of a well established community of architects and engineers. Nothing personal, I just wouldn't expect you to believe my personal argument if a community of experts contradicted it. In the video there are frame by frame still shots, the building is continually increasing in speed as it falls. If no damage was done to any lower parts of the buildings, the main core which was so much heavier and sturdier than the top section that fell would offer at least some resistance which would in turn cause at least a bump in the increasing speed of the fall, there is none which shows something happened to the lower section of the building which compromised its ability to offer resistance to the top section.

The very fact that the building was still there basically proves there was resistance. The part of the building where the collapse began didn't fall at freefall speed, as that is impossible.

I mean, it's not unnatural for something to increase in speed when falling.

The very fact the building was still there? Are we looking at the same pictures? There is no building still there. It is all very small pieces of rubble, all the steel sections were small, all the concrete was pulverized. In a gravitational forced fall, much of the building is still intact, it is just on the ground. Also the pancake theory hinges on the fact that there would have to be stories upon stories of "pancaked" floors remaining at the bottom of the ruins. There is nothing, EVERYTHING is destroyed. Dropping a piece of concrete dropped from the top of the trade centers would break when it hits the ground but not be pulverized, pulverization is a result of explosive force, all demo experts will agree to that.

Mr. Gage explains how all groups, FEMA, NIST, and many independent architects ALL agree that all though big, the crash of a plane had little effect on the integrity of the structure. You can tell because the buildings hardly budge as the size of a Boeing is very small compared to the size of the towers. Architect Les Robinson said when he built the towers, they were built to withstand the impact of a plane, specifically a Boeing 707, the biggest jet at the time. The NIST report puts all blame for structural failures on the fires.

Oh yes I know they built it to withstand a boeing 707, but the ones that hit the towers were bigger. The towers are also designed so that if they collapse they fall inwards to not destroy other buildings.
And you are also forgetting that the fuel from the planes could've made the fires way hotter than usual.

I can't seem to rip myself away from the screen haha. Mr. Gage's documented presentation shows that the fires never came even close to the temperature needed to melt or weaken the steel to the point of collapse, thats why steel sky scrapers are so popular because they resist fire extremely well. In fact the highest burning temperature of jet fuel is around 1200 -1400 degrees and the melting/weakening point of steel is in the 2000's. Those are scientific stats and not casual terms with no credibility like "way hotter"

Also in the movie the, Les Robertson architect of WTC who states he built it to withstand a 707(here is an example of how the video can elaborate more than I can unless I type 20 pages worth in one comment) He goes on to say that, yes, the 767 is bigger, but the 707 could go much faster. They built it for max speed of the 707 and when you have a 707 going faster with more velocity than a 767, he says they are very similiar in damage. But this is point is moot because according to NIST and FEMA the size and impact of the plane didn't lead the tower to collapse, it was all in the fires.

[suggs]

Evidence:
Reptilian Overlords

I hope you're joking
You might as well treat the Da Vinci Code as History

David Icke is a genius!

Ah, well you should have said-if Our Saviour the Ickee boy say its true, its true-FACTOID.

[SolidLuigi]

Also, for those that refuse to watch the video, I just thought of this. If you refuse to watch the presentation because you don't want to see "crackpot" arguments FOR explosives, don't you want to see it for how he discredits many of the 9/11 commission and NIST reports. The ideas and arguments that YOU hold in your mind in the truth, this guy has arguments and ideas and evidence that discredit them, don't you want to at least see it for that part?

I gotta go do some errands, will be back on later

[suggs]

This thread is great.
It automatcially sifts those with a brain, from those who really should have stayed with the reptiles in the primordial swamp.
To clarify: anyone that believes one word of this conspiracy nonsense has the brain of a very small snake.

[Snorri1234]

The very fact the building was still there? Are we looking at the same pictures? There is no building still there.

I WAS TALKING ABOUT WHEN THE FUCKING BUILDING STARTED COLLAPSING! The rest of the building didn't magically disappear, it is pretty reasonable to assume there was resistance as the force from the "explosions" you're putting there would've attributed to the upward resistance anyway.

Also, what amazes me is how they calculated precisely where the planes would hit and start the explosion from there.

Dropping a piece of concrete dropped from the top of the trade centers would break when it hits the ground but not be pulverized, pulverization is a result of explosive force, all demo experts will agree to that.

Then why do most agree that it wasn't a demolition?

[SolidLuigi]

The very fact the building was still there? Are we looking at the same pictures? There is no building still there.

I WAS TALKING ABOUT WHEN THE FUCKING BUILDING STARTED COLLAPSING! The rest of the building didn't magically disappear, it is pretty reasonable to assume there was resistance as the force from the "explosions" you're putting there would've attributed to the upward resistance anyway.

Also, what amazes me is how they calculated precisely where the planes would hit and start the explosion from there.

When a controlled demolition occurs, the whole building is still there, yet, the building falls at near free fall speed, the same speed the towers and especially building 7 fell. In these cases, explosions didn't cause upward resistance, so why would they cause upwards resistance on 9/11? Also I think you are missing a basic part of the laws of resistance. The building underneath would not have to magically disappear for there to be no resistance. Once the supports in the main building below are destroyed and it begin to fall, they are offering no more resistance to what is above them because they have nothing to push against at the bottom to resist in an upwardly direction.

the explosions didn't have to start exactly where the planes hit, anywhere below on the tower would suffice since it would cause a loss in structural integrity with would start a chain reaction.

OK ready for this, here is a part from the video, so you can read it here instead of taking all that work to click a link. Mr. Gage shows video footage of the top section of the north tower beginning to fall. You can see it falling into the remaining, supposedly undamaged, part of the tower. You see telescoping floors as the top section falls. The remaining building is standing firmly and the top section is flattening into it for a couple seconds, what any architect would expect since the bottom is "undamaged" and at full structural integrity. It should withstand the top falling into it, architects plan for these things when they build. Now dust is going everywhere and most of the top section is already destroyed as its falling and then all of a sudden, now is when the whole bottom section decides to fall, when a lot of the matter from the top section has already demolished and flew off the sides, thus less matter is pushing down on the towers than before when the whole top was intact. Goes against many laws of physics and the theory stated in NIST investigation.

Another part of the video he points out is the "squibs" we see on all 3 buildings in the video footage. The squibs are the blasts of dust and pulverized concrete you see shooting out the sides of the buildings at singular spots sometimes as far as 40 stories down. Why is this important? We all know that controlled demolitions are complicated. even on jobs where they are planned out carefully for months, there can still be misfires in a line of explosives, aka explosives going off at the wrong time. Critics say the squibs are actually puffs of air pushed out by the pancaking floors forcing air out down the elevator shaft and out the side. This doesn't follow the laws of physics in more ways than one. We see these squibs coming out at different levels at different times and they are coming out in singular spots. If you take a plate of pudding and take a flat object and push down like a pancaking floor. the pudding is going to shoot out all sides. So the air would come out of the elevator shaft, immediately disperse to fill the room and then as that floor was flattened it would shoot out all sides. None of that even matters though because scientists can measure the velocity of the squibs from the video, the velocity is too great for just air being compressed, there would have to be almost a vacuum leading to that one singular window and much more air pressure to create these "puffs of air" Even better yet, the video footage of squibs on building 7 show them clearly going upwards in the traditional controlled demolition method, near the top floors. So if they are going up and are going to the top floors, there is no way they can be puffs of air from pancaking floors, no one has explained these squibs definitively. Now pair that with the fact 7 isn't even mentioned in the 9/11 commission, wow another coincidence. This should raise questions in any logical thinking person. This section about the squibs in 7 is at 28:00 into the movie and is only a couple mins long, so you can just jump to there if you want to see it for yourself.

Dropping a piece of concrete dropped from the top of the trade centers would break when it hits the ground but not be pulverized, pulverization is a result of explosive force, all demo experts will agree to that.

Then why do most agree that it wasn't a demolition?

Mr. Gage has demo experts saying it is controlled demo in the presentation. Please list the experts you are referring to.

[SolidLuigi]

also forgot to mention, the "pile driver" theory is totally disproved in this presentation. There was minimal kinetic energy from the top section as it fell into the lower, only a few floors of damage separated them. Gage goes on to prove even if a crane hoisted the top section up an "x" amount of distance from the lower section and dropped it(therefore giving it more kinetic energy due to increased speed) onto to the lower section, an immediate failure of the whole lower section still wouldn't happen because of the comparison of the size and weight of the top section only being a fraction of the lower, plus the lower is still supposed to be structurally sound which makes it even stronger.

[SolidLuigi]

This thread is great.
It automatcially sifts those with a brain, from those who really should have stayed with the reptiles in the primordial swamp.
To clarify: anyone that believes one word of this conspiracy nonsense has the brain of a very small snake.

Suggs, you are the perfect example of the peer pressure effect and the use of self-righteous claims and name calling can pressure people into believing you instead of convincing them with actual arguments.

To demean someone else for raising questions means you know absolutely that what the 9/11 commission and NIST say is true. Well that's pretty impressive since NIST doesn't even absolutely know themselves! And they are engineers and scientists who were there investigating. Their 3 year investigation was never finished, they claim it is still unknown what caused collapse, and their best theory, the fire theory, is admitted by them very unlikely. The 9/11 commission's report of the collapse is based mostly on thei NIST investigation.

Raising questions, investigating, being intuitive are all signs of an active and thinking brain. Just repeating what you hear without investigating it is something a parrot can do.

So I've heard people say "oh sure, some snotty nosed college kids are smarter than the government". So care to tell me how someone on a internet games forum knows more than NIST? I'm not claiming to know what happened, I'm showing that the investigations and commission are both a farce and that there needs to be a new one conducted, from there we start choosing sides, pointing fingers and accusing based on evidence.

So, we're all agreed, bar Jay who is clearly one ball short of a full set, that THIS THREAD IS A COMPLETE PILE OF SMELLY ARSE?
WHY would Bush want to kill loads of his own people you idiots?
You dont think he could have found another reason for war that would have been slightly less embarrassing to him? 9/11 happened on his watch, so ultimately (a bit harsh, I know) it was his responsibility.
Pull your thick paranoid heads out of your conspiracy crap filled arses, and go back to the Nursery where you belong.
All the Best!
Suggs.

again attacks on character.

Also this brings up my argument again of using speculative debate. "WHY would Bush want to kill his own people?" I can just an just as easily say "WHY wouldn't he?" Now let's get this straight, I'm not accusing Bush, I'm using this as an example to prove a point. You can't speculate what people think to prove your point because we can't read minds. Anyone can tell you that as far back as we can remember there have been murderers, rapists, serial killers etc, so that proves that humans can be evil or have evil thoughts. Many many leaders throughout history have treated their own citizens horribly, for recent examples just look to Hitler (most of the victims of his genocide were German because he also sent mentally ill, homosexuals, prosititutes, gypsies etc to the camps, pretty much anyone who didnt fit into his plan), or Saddam Hussein who gassed his own people. Now I know someone will slam me for comparing Bush to these 2 and then feel like a dignified "patriot", but the point is not to compare Bush himself to them, but anyone that is elected to office. People are irrational, people can go from good to bad, a lot of the times people who are bad have some warped view that to them they are doing good. And what's something you hear from many people who knew serial killers before they were caught "Yeah he was just a regular guy, a nice person". Point is, you can't have an argument just be why would he do this, the human mind is too irrational. You have to remove your emotions from the debate. The fact it feels so unbelievable that he could ever do that is because you are relating to your morals and beliefs and your friends and families, other people you know well. You have to detatch that and objectively look at it. Police and jurors and judges have to do that in investigations and trials, or else the honest truth would be cluttered if even found at all.

Embarrassed by 9/11? You saw that soon after 9/11 there were critics but most were shot down by the new found ultra-patriotism that had swept the nation. This actually gave him the chance to be the hero, to condemn these terrorists and unite America, then go out and get them, which he never did.

Then again more attacks on character, nice work

[jay_a2j]

I am reposting this because it got lost, and i want some asnwers dammit

I don't have all the answers, but I know what makes sense and what doesn't.

The WTC was closed down due to a "power failure" the week before 911. (Nice opportunity to rig the building with no one around)

OK:
1) This testimony came from one man, Scott Forbes, who claimed there was a power outage on his floor in tower 2 (the 50th floor, i believe) from midday on september 8, 2001. He was an IT geek.
- this means there were witnesses in the buildings
- this does not mean the power outage affected every circuit in the building. in fact, here is a link to a picture of a ticket stub for the viewing platform dated the time and day this power outage was supposed to have happened: here

So we know at least the lifts were working, the ticket machines were working, and tourists were inside the building at the time this team of shadowy demolition experts were wiring over 100 floors of skyscraper. No, mr Forbes didn't see them either.

2) I googled some controlled demolition examples. Here is a press release from 2005: link - detailing the demolition of a 9-story hospital in the US. It took the professional demolition squad ONE WEEK (6th para in press release) to wire the building. Not to prepare the logisitics - to set the explosives. How long would it take a demo team to wire two buildings, each ten times the size?


The 'closing of the WTC' I have shown to be a myth.
Controlled demolition is also just a myth - it would have been a MASSIVE job, weeks long, and yet nobody saw a demolition man, strange wiring, ANYTHING to corroborate this.

If you guys can show me otherwise in either case - perhaps with evidence, as I have done - i'd be happy to discuss it.




PS if you mention Marvin Bush i will make you blush with my pwnage

idk, were the towers open 24/7 or could the rigging of them be done under the cover of night?

Surely if the towers were rigged they would use more than 1 demolition team. How big a demolition team does the US military have?

[Iliad]

I am reposting this because it got lost, and i want some asnwers dammit

I don't have all the answers, but I know what makes sense and what doesn't.

The WTC was closed down due to a "power failure" the week before 911. (Nice opportunity to rig the building with no one around)

OK:
1) This testimony came from one man, Scott Forbes, who claimed there was a power outage on his floor in tower 2 (the 50th floor, i believe) from midday on september 8, 2001. He was an IT geek.
- this means there were witnesses in the buildings
- this does not mean the power outage affected every circuit in the building. in fact, here is a link to a picture of a ticket stub for the viewing platform dated the time and day this power outage was supposed to have happened: here

So we know at least the lifts were working, the ticket machines were working, and tourists were inside the building at the time this team of shadowy demolition experts were wiring over 100 floors of skyscraper. No, mr Forbes didn't see them either.

2) I googled some controlled demolition examples. Here is a press release from 2005: link - detailing the demolition of a 9-story hospital in the US. It took the professional demolition squad ONE WEEK (6th para in press release) to wire the building. Not to prepare the logisitics - to set the explosives. How long would it take a demo team to wire two buildings, each ten times the size?


The 'closing of the WTC' I have shown to be a myth.
Controlled demolition is also just a myth - it would have been a MASSIVE job, weeks long, and yet nobody saw a demolition man, strange wiring, ANYTHING to corroborate this.

If you guys can show me otherwise in either case - perhaps with evidence, as I have done - i'd be happy to discuss it.




PS if you mention Marvin Bush i will make you blush with my pwnage

idk, were the towers open 24/7 or could the rigging of them be done under the cover of night?

Surely if the towers were rigged they would use more than 1 demolition team. How big a demolition team does the US military have?

further question: why don't the people in the demolition teams, and pretty much everyone who was supposed to be a part of it: why haven't they said anything for what 6 years now?

[Snorri1234]

idk, were the towers open 24/7 or could the rigging of them be done under the cover of night?

So we go from "the tower was closed that day" to "maybe the tower was open but what about at night?". Good to know you didn't make any bullshit claims earlier.
I imagine that there was security at night.

Surely if the towers were rigged they would use more than 1 demolition team. How big a demolition team does the US military have?

Don't know. But to do all that work in one single night would still take a lot of time.

[Iliad]

Solid luigi you are making a few mistakes. First of all we don't watch videos since jay, xtra(now banned) and dagip(now retired) posted videos instead of arguments. We would destroy their points and instead of debating they would post another video.

Which brings me to point #2: xtratabasco and jay and dagip have started so many threads. I think the first one went up 40 pages. We already demolished their points every point they had.

Oh and lastly: you've never been in a debate with jay or xtra or dagip so you don't know you're siding with

No I think

[suggs]

(In response to SolidLuigi)So your argument boils down to the fact that Bush enjoyed a blaze of patriotism post 9/11-unified the country.
Hitler (may have) burned down the Reichstag when NOONE was in it.
Stalin and Genghis Khan apart, hes probably the most blood thirsty nutter to have ruled in recent years.
Do you really think G. W. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld would really have gone
to the trouble of killing thousnads of their own people (and quite possible voters) just to unite the country?
If it ever turns out they did that, then they are completely mad-but at the moment, until you produce A SHRED of evidence (as opposed to coincidences, winks, and fabricated nonsense) its the straight jacket for you instead, I'm afraid.
And let me forestall your witty "personal attacks" (try using the Latin ad hominem-it saves a lot of time, and it scans better-language is poetry):
I'm verging on the insulting with you because there doesnt seem to be a way to penetrate your paranoia.
There is:
no evidence
no motivation
lots of irrelevant "facts"
t support your claim
The other reason that i get angry with brain dead numpkins like your good self is that the pursuit of TRUTH IS what its all about, ie life.
Your bullshit just wastes everyones time, and leads simple people into confusion. And you scare people. Its people like you who have completely demeaned politics in the UK and the US by persuading people that "politiciians dont care" or "the government lies to us".
Sure, there are problems in both countries.
BUT YOU ARE DEFLECTING FROM THESE REAL ISSUES, LIKE POVERTY, UNEMPLOYMENT, ENVIRONMENT etc
f*ck off out of my sight. 1776 was wasted on you.

[heavycola]

i will watch your video and tear it to shreds at some point in the near future.

[heavycola]

I am reposting this because it got lost, and i want some asnwers dammit

I don't have all the answers, but I know what makes sense and what doesn't.

The WTC was closed down due to a "power failure" the week before 911. (Nice opportunity to rig the building with no one around)

OK:
1) This testimony came from one man, Scott Forbes, who claimed there was a power outage on his floor in tower 2 (the 50th floor, i believe) from midday on september 8, 2001. He was an IT geek.
- this means there were witnesses in the buildings
- this does not mean the power outage affected every circuit in the building. in fact, here is a link to a picture of a ticket stub for the viewing platform dated the time and day this power outage was supposed to have happened: here

So we know at least the lifts were working, the ticket machines were working, and tourists were inside the building at the time this team of shadowy demolition experts were wiring over 100 floors of skyscraper. No, mr Forbes didn't see them either.

2) I googled some controlled demolition examples. Here is a press release from 2005: link - detailing the demolition of a 9-story hospital in the US. It took the professional demolition squad ONE WEEK (6th para in press release) to wire the building. Not to prepare the logisitics - to set the explosives. How long would it take a demo team to wire two buildings, each ten times the size?


The 'closing of the WTC' I have shown to be a myth.
Controlled demolition is also just a myth - it would have been a MASSIVE job, weeks long, and yet nobody saw a demolition man, strange wiring, ANYTHING to corroborate this.

If you guys can show me otherwise in either case - perhaps with evidence, as I have done - i'd be happy to discuss it.




PS if you mention Marvin Bush i will make you blush with my pwnage

idk, were the towers open 24/7 or could the rigging of them be done under the cover of night?

Surely if the towers were rigged they would use more than 1 demolition team. How big a demolition team does the US military have?

I don't know jay, maybe you should find the answers to these questions yourself. How big is the army's controlled demolition team? how do they smuggle this team you just invented past 24 hr port authority security and into inside two of the largest buildings in the world, night after night, past any of the thousands of people who might be working late, in one of the busiest metropololises on the planet?

Earlier you said the WTC was closed down so the demolition team could sneak in and wire it - now they did it at night? What the hell version do you want? Can you offer any evidence to support either one?*




*no.

[jay_a2j]

There is:
no evidence
no motivation
lots of irrelevant "facts"

There is tons of evidence.

Motivation? War in Iraq, establishment of NWO and don't forget the Patriot Act.

Yes, you do have a lot of irrelevant "facts".

[Snorri1234]

Motivation? War in Iraq, establishment of NWO and don't forget the Patriot Act.

Motivation to kill a few thousand citizens, jay. And they still had to justify the Iraq-war by WMD, so I don't see the point.

[SolidLuigi]

Thank you heavycola for saying you will watch it

Iliad, I understand your standpoint on videos, as I told neutrino before when he said no videos, and that is why it is so frustrating for me and others. So many people who thought conspiracy right away with no investigation, put up ludicrous videos taking giant leaps of faith with no credible sources. Then people who bought into it flooded everywhere with them. What you have to understand is that this movement which is growing, is a separate one from the fanatical initial conspiracy theorists. I've put down many arguments which I think are at least intelligible and not extreme stretches of imagination. Everyone demands that I produce this or that, when a lot of my arguments haven't been replied to in kind.

At the same time, I don't see how eliminating a whole medium because some people abuse it makes sense. Since a lot of weak videos were made, a good one can no longer be made? I have put forth the credentials of the speaker. Another aspect is that it's not a video some guy taped at home and threw on youtube. This is a presentation at the University of Manitoba. When you make a presentation in a University and put yourself into the public forum you are staking your name and professionalism on your sources and information because you are opening yourself to criticism. The reason that it is a video is because obviously that is the only way for people who weren't in the audience to see it. As you can see earlier in the thread I made posts without referring to videos, just stating what I've found and what I believe. People started demanding sources obviously. This presentation has a lot of the same statements I made in it. So I gave them a source, this presentation, and the presenter has sources for all of his statements. Now all of a sudden that's not an allowed source? That wont suffice, if I made these claims in a court of law and they asked for source, I would call upon Mr. Gage(the presenter) to present to the judge or jury since he is a credible source himself as a high-rise architect. Since I can't call him to come to the forum, I figure the best way is to link to this presentation. Remember, this information was all investigated and put together by the Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. So now you have a group of credible people who are all architects or engineers, it's not just one guy.

Again what is there to lose? Click the link watch for a couple mins. If you don't see what you think is a credible presentation by a credible person within the first few minutes, close the window. The whole refusal to even view a portion of it just because it is a video is an ignorant stand point. If I posted a transcript of the video in this forum would everyone be willing to read it? Doesn't make sense.

Look at it from my point of view. I make a statement, you guys call for a source, I present a credible source who cites credible sources, you say bullshit and completely blockade the chance that I might actually be presenting credible evidence because its in a video.

I think when it comes down to it I might end up having to put every single point down here in the thread, you talk about a large thread? Also Mr. Gage has a screen behind him while talking. He has graphs, statistics, evidence, all sourced appearing on the screen as he talks. All of that supporting info would be lost if I wrote everything down here, unless you expect me to do ascii art of all his graphs and photographic evidence haha.

Lastly I never sided with them, I stated my own arguments and kept my posts to arguing my side and debating someone who has replied to me. One time I mentioned "the fighters Jay talked about". If you read the post I made after Backglass demanded to know my age, I list personal information about how I used to just automatically call bullshit on any questioning to the 9/11 commission, when I finally was fair and looked it over, there was actual credible evidence that shows major contradictions and outright lies in the 9/11 commission and NIST's investigation.

example, In the video, there is footage of a press conference where John Gross, Head of NIST firmly denies any knowledge of molten metal and says no one has ever found or stated they've found molten metal. Gage has firefighters confirming they saw it, photos of molten metal on the support beams, and the clean up crew of 9/11 documented it!

My main point is, you don't have to choose a side, I haven't. Nothing is black and white. Just because you don't believe osama's terrorists did it doesn't automatically mean you have to believe the govt did it. Me and Mr. Gage and the A&E's for 911 truth are saying the evidence in this presentation shows that the 9/11 commission and NIST investigations are a farce and an independent study needs to be made.

[SolidLuigi]

(In response to SolidLuigi)So your argument boils down to the fact that Bush enjoyed a blaze of patriotism post 9/11-unified the country.
Hitler (may have) burned down the Reichstag when NOONE was in it.
Stalin and Genghis Khan apart, hes probably the most blood thirsty nutter to have ruled in recent years.
Do you really think G. W. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld would really have gone
to the trouble of killing thousnads of their own people (and quite possible voters) just to unite the country?
If it ever turns out they did that, then they are completely mad-but at the moment, until you produce A SHRED of evidence (as opposed to coincidences, winks, and fabricated nonsense) its the straight jacket for you instead, I'm afraid.

Well it is a shame you missed the whole point of my argument. I clearly stated I'm not implicating Bush or Cheney, I was using it as an example to prove my point. Which was you can't use speculation about someone as credible evidence. But you turned it to make it sound like my argument was to implicate them, and your reply attacks that train of thought and not my point I presented. Yes Hitler was blood thirsty and nuts but no one suspected until after we found out he was killing millions and invaded most of Europe. Hell, Hitler was Time magazines man of the year in 1938! and Stalin was man of the year twice! Again if you think I am here to say the government did it, I am not(probably a bad idea to be posting in the "experts say govt did 9/11" thread, but I posted my initial post here so I decided to stay here instead of start a new thread). I'm saying the 9/11 commission is highly unsubstantial and we need a new investigation.

And let me forestall your witty "personal attacks" (try using the Latin ad hominem-it saves a lot of time, and it scans better-language is poetry):
I'm verging on the insulting with you because there doesnt seem to be a way to penetrate your paranoia.
There is:
no evidence
no motivation
lots of irrelevant "facts"
t support your claim
The other reason that i get angry with brain dead numpkins like your good self is that the pursuit of TRUTH IS what its all about, ie life.
Your bullshit just wastes everyones time, and leads simple people into confusion. And you scare people. Its people like you who have completely demeaned politics in the UK and the US by persuading people that "politiciians dont care" or "the government lies to us".
Sure, there are problems in both countries.
BUT YOU ARE DEFLECTING FROM THESE REAL ISSUES, LIKE POVERTY, UNEMPLOYMENT, ENVIRONMENT etc
f*ck off out of my sight. 1776 was wasted on you.

Paranoia is believing something based on unfounded or baseless matters. I have stated facts in other posts that show I'm not working off baseless or unfounded knowledge.

There is evidence, evidence that points toward explosions and away from fire damage, you just refuse to look at it. I'll give an example, BYU professor, the EPA, and NYC chief examiner all find thermate at the scene, thermate is a derivative of thermite which is military developed explosive charge, used mostly for controlled demolition. 3 groups independent of each other find it. How is that not evidence.

For no motivation. Everyone has agendas, it would be too speculative at this point to single out a definitive suspect. If there are no witnesses to a crime and police are just going on evidence, they don't make arrests or charge any one until a complete investigation has been done. We haven't had the chance to look at the results of a complete investigation.

please tell me which facts are irrelevant, this is an open ended comment

For your rant against me at the end there, it doesn't really have a basis. Just because you think it's bullshit means I don't have the right to pursue my beliefs? That's what freedom and democracy are all about, that's why the founding fathers set up for a small government and the right to bear arms etc so we could keep it in check. From what you are saying, you sound like you would welcome with open arms an authoritarian government, just let em keep taking rights away one by one and then you wont have to even worry about what you are gonna do when you wake up because they have it all planned out for you already. You say I scare people? Well a lot of people scare me too! People, and you know they are out there, that just blindly follow what another person tells them what to do and think. Then when you try to offer them some information that might point the other way, they get defensive, angry, and violent. That's what scares me. It's all subjective.