COMMENTS:
....and NO broken windows, so how did the fires start?
Haven't we went over this already?
No we haven't, - So have you got any opinion on it?
just last week ceejjj
I am not a Building engineer or architect so really have no clue.
Neither do building engineers or architects, isn't that strange?
Don't know ken
Ballot #78058. And as it was stated in that ballot, the building was taken down because it was a hazard. It sustained a lot of structural damage and deemed totalled.
ok, that explains it
Ballot #78058. And as it was stated in that ballot, the building was taken down because it was a hazard. It sustained a lot of structural damage and deemed totalled.
Jeez, this is so crap! have you you read my ballot intro?
Have you seen photos of the building just minutes before it collapsed? At worst it was literally given a light powdering of dust by the twin towers collapse, and received NO structural damage whatsoever! - that is a lie and a fallacy.
Tell everyone what this structural damage was you claim occurred, I'm dying to know.
Wow, I really hope someone can explain this in detail because the 9/11 commission failed to examine how it was possible for the WTC 7 to be demolished at 5:30 pm on the same day, when it normally takes two weeks for a building that size to be properly prepped with explosives.
don' t know, but that was an unusual day, I mean the events and possible speeding up of usual paper work and planning for a building being demolished, there may be other reasons, but the fact it was done so hurridly does not really make me think the unthinkable
How You Know 9/11 Was An Inside Job
Check the above also by Roedy Green.
Dude, Bin Laden admitted to it. He is even on film as it happens narrating what is going to happen, essentially. I believe I saw a film of his buddy telling him of the first tower being hit and him explaining how the next would be hit shortly and giving additional details of the attack. Guess that was a hoax too, right?
Yeah, I saw that too, and I remember at the time - long before what I have recently discovered - thinking it looked and sounded suspicious, he could have been saying anything, given the magnitide of the crime it would be the simplest thing in the world to dub a voice over.
Hollywood or PSYOPS ya think?
Hollywood would've down a much better job than that tacky cobbled- together piece of goat poo.
*done
Zig: So I am assuming you have irrefutable evidence that discredits the video, assuming that is what you are referring to? Please direct me to this evidence. Thanks.
Oh come off it Cletus, I was just ribbing you.
Those videos do look kind of iffy though... especially the one in which he appears to have had a nose job.
It's also interesting to read reports that he was a CIA asset at one time with his very own American code name.
Oh, and Clinton was offered his extradition from Sudan in the 90s but declined it.
It's also been reported that he received dialysis treatment at the American hospital in Dubai the summer before 9/11, where he was visited by field agents.
Probably nothing to worry about though, eh?
One more tiny detail...
It's reported that George Bush Senior met with executives of the Carlyle Group at the Washington DC Ritz Carlton hotel on the morning of 9/11, where bin Laden's brother was in attendance, but that's probably just one of life's strange little coincidences.
"Oh, and Clinton was offered his extradition from Sudan in the 90s but declined it." by ZIG on Aug 21, 2005 2:48pm
Of course he declined it. He was in cahoots with Bush back at this time. That is obvious. Now, if he WASN'T in cahoots with Bush, then I will automatically disbelieve this report because we all know Bush Planned 9/11.
"It's reported that George Bush Senior met with executives of the Carlyle Group at the Washington DC Ritz Carlton hotel on the morning of 9/11, where bin Laden's brother was in attendance, but that's probably just one of life's strange little coincidences."
by ZIG on Aug 21, 2005 2:51pm
Well, since Bin Laden's brother was at a meeting with Bush Sr. (Who we all know is still the current president of the US and was on 9/11), at a hotel with other executives, that solves it. That was Bush Sr.'s first meeting ever with executives, since he usually is on a construction site, knocking down walls and operating a wrecking ball. It all makes sense! Bush Sr. planted the explosives at the WTC site and Bush Jr. pressed the button to set them off! Case closed: The US government is guilty!
If you're incapable of having a discussion without dripping heaps of sarcasm all over the place, why didn't you just say so?
Believe what you want to, but don't rip other people for having questions about something as important as this, especially when a significant number of the 9/11 bereaved families are still trying to get answers from this administration and are getting nowhere fast.
I'm quite willing to discuss this or anything with you in a rational way, but I can't be arsed arguing with you... it's a waste of time.
Zig: I am using sarcasm to point out the wrongness and lunacy of some arguments. I don't have a problem with people questioning things, I actually encourage that. Now, many go too far and state their conspiracy theories as if they are irrefutable facts, and there are many gullible people out there, particularly on this site. Some on this site state such things as facts in order to advance their agendas, and I will systematically tear every one of their arguments that I see down. If just one person on this site is liberated from this far-left, psychotic, everything-is-a-conspiracy mindset, then I will have accomplished a lot. If sarcasm makes them realize that, while it is OK to question things, believing almost everything is a conspiracy-theory is quite insane and that many twist things (on both sides, I may add) to advance their own agendas, I shall continue to use it.
However 'wrong' or 'lunatic' some of these questions or arguments may seem to you, there's nothing psychotic about desiring to know why there are so many inconsistencies regarding some of the events of that day... and the fact is there are many.
I don't see anyone here with an agenda as such, but I see a lot of inquiring minds on all subject matters, some very balanced viewpoints, and a few sleepy-headed sheep (not many, but a few) willing to lockstep with the official line... either because they're afraid to look past their noses, or because they lack the basic intellect to do so. And no, before you accuse me of it, I'm not lumping you in with either group.
If we call ourselves a free people then free inquiry should be available to all without fear of unwarranted accusation, wouldn't you agree?
Asking questions shouldn't be regarded as a threat in any free society.
Anyway, peace out Cletus, I'm outta here for now. I love some of your funny ballots and I know you're a good guy, so chill... Not everyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is a hater.
*Chalks one up on the win column* ;-)
Not so fast mister. ;)
Well I don't give a flying fuck who disagrees with me, I am going to forge ahead with the TRUTH, I notice certain would -be -bullies on here prefer to attack the messenger rather than examine the information the messenger may have at hand, and as is evidenced above fail to challenge the allegations, which would be the best and easiest way to express their point.
The only 'agenda' I will uphold is the the agenda of 'TRUTH'.
Seen as certain people on here prefer to diversify away from what must be an uncomfortable subject for them by ignoring it and bringing up some ambiguous, grainy, barely audible, garbled, sub-titled piece of undocumentable video footage I will remind all visitors to this page what this ballot is about;
CHOICES : HISTORY : WHAT :
WHY DID WTC 7 INEXPLICABLY COLLAPSE INTO IT'S OWN FOOTPRINT 8 HOURS AFTER THE COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS?
serious ballot by Ken_from_Dublin
ACTIVE Aug 20,2005 - May 15, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was not damaged by aircraft impacts or anything else, it had two small unexplained fires in the fourth and thirteenth stories, which inexplicably weren't extinguished by the automatic sprinkler system, it was probably the strongest steel framed building ever built, it's steel girders were not the typical 'H' or 'I' cross section, they were a solid rectangular cross section because the building straddled the city's main electrical sub-station.
Yet, this building collapsed in what to all intents and purposes looked like a text book demolition, right down to the tell-tale smoke streamers ejecting out of various floors as it collapsed.
It would have been the tallest building standing in most cities, yet because it was overshadowed by the equally questionable collapse/demolitions of the twin towers we rarely hear about it.
It had no more reason to collapse than the Empire State building, or the Sears Tower.
In what is the biggest most unexplained engineering failure in architectural history, we have no forensic evidence to try and understand what happened to prevent it happening in future, because the Bush administration ILLEGALLY ordered that every last spec of dust or steel splinter of forensic evidence be disposed off.
A bit like cremating the murder victim before the autopsy reveals the real cause of death.
Ken, nice cheap shots at me, they really were effective. If you had noticed on a comment today about this matter on a news item I posted, I actually mentioned that you are not a conspiracy nut. Now, you are passing this item in question off as irrefutable proof that 9/11 was carried out by the US government. I am simply pointing out that, while this (and a giant laser from pluto) are all potential reasons for its destruction, this has, in no way, been established to be the truth, as you have become indoctrinated to believe.
Also, Ken, you have used this item in question to establish the fact that the Bush administration carried out this attack as "true." I guess you have only looked at the lower part of your screen thus far today. Had you looked into the top right corner even for a brief moment, you would have noticed an article and 3 news postings relating to the matter of 9/11. 3 of them deal with real proof, not hypotheses, about Bin Laden admitting responsibility on 3 seperate occasions. Another, an article, brings to light the fact that such claims about 9/11 are (IMO) esentially so far from realistic that one can basically assume they are not true. Thus, I have established an argument based on irrefutable proof and thus far...yours is on what you THINK happened. Unless...all of the Bin Laden audio and video tapes thus far have been fabricated?
Look, I'm not going to get bogged down in a tit for tat argument here, this is WAY to important for that, as far as I am concerned Bin Laden is only a footnote in this, didn't George Bush recently declare that he doesn't care about finding him any more or words to that effect? -What an extraordinary statement!
Now if you want to make a ballot about the issues you have - namely the videos you refer to - GO AHEAD! I will contribute to it no problem!
But while you're on here I would love to hear what your opinions are regarding the ballot at hand. I look forward to you disproving the points listed, because I am after the truth and I am determined to find out what it is, and if you can present a cogent rebuttal I will applaud you and thank you for proving that I was wrong.
I did comment on your ballot, Ken. I am not an architect or an engineer, so I have no idea why it fell. Again, you used this to say that 9/11 was caused by the Bush Administration. That is not only irrational, but weak. Is it POSSIBLE that they did this? Of course. Is it POSSIBLE that Plutonians did this? Yep, neither has much significant evidence to prove it, though. Say, Ken, do you believe in God? I sure hope not.
You admit that it is possible that the Bush administration did this, great! we are getting somewhere, now , who are these Plutonians that you speak of? I have not heard anything about these yet.
You admit that it is possible that the Bush administration did this, great! now we are getting somewhere, now, who are these Plutonians that you speak of? I have not heard anything about these yet, are they from the planet Sarcasm?
Whoops, accidentally, submitted the former before I had finished it.
'I did comment on your ballot, Ken. I am not an architect or an engineer, so I have no idea why it fell.' - Cletus
Sorry for contradicting you, but ... eh ... you didn't ... larrynelmira submitted that comment.
So what's your opinion?
PS. What has a belief in God got to do with anything as regards this ballot?
Ken Ken Ken. I am assuming you know what I meant, so I will carry on.
Now, there are 2 options: I rest my case, or you answer whether or not you believe in god. Yes, this questions is relevant to the ballot. I'll take anything else than a non-answer to this as "Let's end this debate."
Ken: "I did answer your ballot" and "I am not an architect or engineer" were meant as separate points. So, in case you didn't realize that, I agree with Larry. Obviously, he and I consider this as one option, but keep our minds open. You are apparently convinced that the US government is behind this, and you have no real proof, only speculation and weak evidence.
that should be "take anything else than an answer." My apologies.
Well, I had fun on this ballot. I am off for the night. Thanks for the ballot seriously) because I got the chance to expose the conspiracy theories for what they are....theories. It also motivated me to post up concrete, essentially indisputable evidence about the admissions of guilt by the man who, in all likelihood, was behind it and bring into perspective just how far-fetched some of this crap is. If there weren't personal insults levied against me, I'd give you a +5 for this 1.
Well none are so blind as they who will not see.
I sense you consider this to be as reprehensible as personal attack on your family and you just will not entertain or consider for one second the slightest expression of doubt concerning your government.
I find it quite sad and pathetic to be honest.
I'm not finished on this ballot by the way, and there are more to come.
OK, watch this folks, this is how you end a verbal ass-kicking of this sort.
Ken, you have yet to address my question. Why? Because you, even you, know where I am going with it. You know that, when you admit you believe in God, I will absolutely tear down any last hope of you winning this argument and expose that you accept hearsay as truth. Think I am joking? Answer this comment shortly and I will demonstrate. If you want to talk about being gullible and pathetic, I challenge you to answer whether you believe in God right now. Again, to spare yourself embarrassment, I sincerely hope you don't believe in God. Now answer.
Thought not...Now I AM finished with this ballot. Good debate. Look forward to more such ballots in the future :-)
What is he on?
8.59pm over there is 2 in the morning over here, I was in bed, I've had five hours sleep, he waits 11 minutes for a reply, yes a WHOLE 11 minutes, and lo and behold he deludes himself into believing I will just give up my beliefs just like that, well you are SORELY mistaken.
You want to ask me about God, - and I sincerely have no clue what you are on about and doubt anyone else does reading this - then go right ahead, MAKE A BALLOT, but don't come on to this unrelated ballot and try to bully me into a debate about God, to compensate for your own impotency regarding addressing the salient points I have highlighted in this ballot.
By the way, you will not win any argument with me concerning God, you really are gullible and pathetic if you think an argument concerning a concept as abstract and subjective as God is 'winnable'.
I have to go to work now, allow me more than 11 minutes this time to reply will you?
scientist will tell you that it was an inside job.Physics prove that quite well. hell the laws of chaos theory will tell you that two buildings hit two different ways will have two different results. not the same as seen on 9/11. what happened to the 47 steel columns in the center of the building , pbs omitted them. that was dumb you can watch documentaries of the bulidings being built and see the steel core.
It was an inside job, and the whole building was pulled in a controlled demolition.
When Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.”
Mr. McQuillan later claimed that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
But "It" does not refer to firefighters. If they were referring to firefighters, the word would be "them" not "it". If the firefighters were referring to themselves, they would use "us", but definitely not "It".
Despite the lies of Mr. McQuillan, and the later change of story by Larry Silverstein, and the silly lies on the debunking911 blog site, the real problem with their lying change of story is that there were no firefighters in WTC 7.
In WTC 7, "No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." (FEMA Report) QUOTE - "WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."
Even Popular Mechanics agreed with this, stating, "There was no firefighting in WTC 7"
"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from for safety reasons." New York Times WTC 7 went down long afterwards at 5:20pm.
So the claim of pulling the firefighters doesn't make sense because it is clear there weren't any firefighters in WTC 7 anyway.
His claim that "pull it" isn't used to refer to controlled demolitions is proven to be a lie even in the Oxford English Dictionary.
pull down - To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
pull down 1. To pull down or break up so that reconstruction is impossible: demolish, destroy, dismantle, dynamite, knock down, level, pulverize, raze, tear down, wreck
It's a term used for demolitions - cable, explosive, by wrecking ball, or any other method of destruction. It's clearly a demolition term.
Incidentally, "pull" also means "demolish" in any context involving firefighting. You can find examples of the use of the word "pull" to mean demolish by merely using Google to search for "firefighter" and "pull."
Example:
"E7's crew pulled the wall and knocked the fire quickly"
taken from here:
wellstonfd . com / index _ 038 . htm
Indira Singh was a volunteer civilian Emergency Medical Technician at the World Trade Center on September 11th. She was a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management.
INDRA SINGH EMT: "...by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down."
HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?"
SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility..."
CRAIG BARTMER NYPD: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw..."
John Kerry: WTC Building 7 Was a Controlled Demolition
Kerry was asked about the officially unexplained collapse of WTC Building 7,
Kerry responded:
"I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things-- that they did it in a controlled fashion."
Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden traveled to ground zero completely of his own accord and spent the next four days searching through the rubble and nearby buildings for survivors.
On September 9 2006, McPadden told an audience at the Community Church in New York City how while he was stationed in a Red Cross operations center, he was told that Building 7 was going to be brought down
McPADDEN: "They said you know you've got to stay behind this line because they're thinking about taking this building down, they're not sure if it's stable or not, so they were holding a line off because they had knowledge that something was gonna happen. Well, they pushed us back a little bit....a couple of minutes later they started coming down....people started coming back out to the street, I watched five New York City buses jam packed with people wanting to do search and rescue head down there towards Building 7 - people walk out into the middle of the street to see these people off, like bon voyage and right then Building 7 came down."
Reporter Al Jones: "People started to run away from the scene and I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion -- looked like it had been done by a demolition crew -- the whole thing just collapsing down on itself and another big huge plume of gray and white smoke shooting up into the air and then more of the smoke billowing up the street here... so that’s number one, number two, and now number seven that have come down from this explosion."
Live 9-11 Report from 1010 WINS NYC News Radio, presented in the documentary "911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 28:25)
CBS News Anchor, Dan Rather, makes comments after Building 7 falls down:
“Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”
Larry Silverstein told them to demolish the WTC 7 building. Maybe he was thinking that he could carry on with a story that after the towers had already fallen, the demo team ran into a building that was on fire and completely surrounded and filled with smoke and debris and perfectly set up explosives to bring down building 7 (which shouldn't have fallen to begin with) - after which running back through the fire and debris and smoke to exit the building before demolishing it.
That of course, doesn't make any sense. That then means that building 7 was already hooked up to explosives prior to 9/11 (which proves that the owner and then also the government knew about it and orchestrated it) - This seriously leads to the question as to why WTC 1 and 2 looked and acted so much like controlled demolitions - your explanation hasnt dealt with that fact. Because if you are going to wire one of your buildings ahead of time why not wire them all? Which then means that the towers were hooked up as well.
There were only 3 buildings in the World Trade Center complex owned by Larry Silverstein. WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.
They were also the only 3 steel-framed hi-rise buildings that collapsed suspiciously, the only 3 in the entire complex that went straight down just like controlled demolitions. Only those 3 buildings at the World Trade Center which were controlled by Larry Silverstein and none of the others.
Anyone with commonsense would be able to see how suspicious this is.
It was only those 3 buildings which were destroyed in what looked like, and behaved like, controlled demolitions.
|
