World Trade Center

fodders said:

How about Tower7 collapsed?

And the 20 or so buildings that were severely damaged (Some beyond repair) that surrounded the main site. Yup our government must have done all that too... LOL

Two commercial air liners slamming into two tall ass buildings causing them to collapse tends to have an effect on the foundation of nearby structures. Pretty logical to me.

Of course surrounding buildings were damaged!

On the other hand if you will watch the footage, you can easily see that Building 7 was way out in left field and was only suffering from some minor fires that somehow errupted in the upper floors...

The government said the fires got out of hand and leveled the building, but Larry Silverstein who owns the building, admits to having had the building "pulled" which means demolished.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs&search=building%207

Do you really think by saying "pulled" he really ment he was controlling the fire with his mind!?!? NO he was refering to demolitions, and as you can see building 7 and buildings 1 and 2 fell in exactly the SAME pre-planned manner. Demolitions take a long time to plan and a long time to set up. Who was in the buildings in the weeks before 911, how did they bypass security?

There are answers to this, America likes to keep records, we are not a scrictly verbal culture like those who came before us.

As for planes taking down the buildings...

...maybe, but they were designed to withstand more than one plane attack and much more actually. If anything, the planes should have hit, then the tops (if any part of the buildings) should have came crumbling down, but not the whole building, rather the tops would have most likely slid off if the damage was what they make it out to be.

If you can find it, I'd watch:

Imagine - A Short History of Tall Buildings.
It seems pretty scarce on the net atm, but it is really informative and helps to understand how sky scrapers are built, desinged and what they can withstand, if you can find the video in the first place that is.

I dunno why I'm trying to point this out to you, it's like religion...

...if you prove to a person that there religion is not the end all, and has many inconsitancies in it, they still keep believing for old times sake...

...for security.

Be objective for 5 seconds of your life, it may make a difference.

XDelusion your username is sort of appropriate. And you're dumb.

Ahhh can't (won't) debunk what he says so flame him, good move.

<XDelusion> 1 + 1 = 6 you fools!!!
<AndrewB> You're dumb.
<fodders> Ahhh can't (won't) debunk what he says so flame him, good move.

Can someone who has studied the matter tell me what is the exact relevance of demolishing Building 7? What for? The destruction of the iconic New York skyline is enough for a conspiracy, I'd believe.

So, why B7?

WTC7: "The building's tenants included the CIA, Department of Defense, IRS, Secret Service, and Rudy Giuliani's emergency bunker. And the SEC was using it to store three to four thousand files related to numerous Wall Street investigations."

Building 7 is documented to be the building that stored records and documents for the US' Gestapo forces, I.E. the CIA, FBI, NRA, etc.
There was also some sort of re-enforced room built within the building not long before the 911 attack. If the room was ever used, and for what exact purpose is unknown. But the main question still lingers,"why a re-enforced room, and why so damn ironically near 911"?

If you google about you should be able to pull up some info about building 7, I know Alex Jones has a lot of material on it on his Prison Planet page.

------------

AndrewB: So my name is fitting, meaing I am lacking in delusions, yet at the same time I am dumb and can not add 1+1 without coming out with the end result of 6?

Isn't that a little contradicting? Sort of like saying,"I would give up my freedoms for my liberty"?

DOUBLE PLUS PLUS...

It's ironic no one seems to notice these subtle little habits that seem to exsist in almost every aspect of main stream life, thought, and culture.

And publicly (on a more simplistic level) there can't be a speculative explanation as to why it fell; not even a farfetched and unverifiable theory like the one used for towers 1 and 2 is possible, and Silverstein slipped in public basically confirming the destruction of tower 7 artificially.

The NRA is a US gestapo force, eh? It's not a government agency.

The National Rifle Association is a secret police organization. ololololololol

Yes, the NRA is included in the FBI's filing and operations.

Again, I insist that you watch:

Waco - The Rules of Engagement

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/102-1146179-1336960?search-alias=aps&keywords=waco


And for the record, the NRA exsists only with the U.S. so that makes it American, since it has been recorded to work in connection with the FBI, that would make it an extension of the government's arm.

None of the above organizations exsist in secrecy, but do infact act in secrecy.

You have crossed a new boundary of utter and complete stupidity. With you stupdity has crossed into territories uncharted.

Also I have recorded news tapes from the assault on the Branch Dividian Compound at Ruby Ridge, since I, you know, lived (close around) there at the time. I don't need to watch a video from somebody who was most likely wearing tinfoil while producing it.

HobbsTiger1 said:

You have passed into a new boundary of utter and complete stupidity.

You don't go into boundaries, you cross them, stupid! lloloolo

lololol my english sucks, fixt

HobbsTiger1 said:
I don't need to watch a video from somebody who was most likely wearing tinfoil while producing it.

If you're even going to talk about it, let alone judge it and its producer, you might well indeed need to examine it first.

Sorry, replace NRA with ATF. I've smoked myself retarded today...

Actually you can't blame the weed, to error is human.

And yes the NRA is a Gov organization.

You may resume with your ape like insults now, sorry it pisses you off so much to only be able to tackle me on such a small matter. Must feel like winning the home coming game...

...the one where you fight the all time loosing team to ensure your triumph at the end.

Girls dig fake cowards!

The tin foil fits quite snugly thank you! ;)

XDelusion said:
to error is human.

Yes, to err is human. Heh.

myk said:

If you're even going to talk about it, let alone judge it and its producer, you might well indeed need to examine it first.

Reading the synopsis and descriptionwas good enough. If the Branch Dividians were a valid religious group then anything that calls itself a religious group is a valid group. Not only have I seen news reports and interviews with survivors, but I have talked to one of these people with my own mouth and heard him with my own ears (it was before the raid); they were indeed a cult. While the ATF (and Janet Reno, cant forget the excellent role she played) botched the raid badly the conspiracy presented by the synopsis and description is pure garbage.

XDelusion said:

And yes the NRA is a Gov organization.

And because you say so...that makes it so? Or is that $20 DVD the only source of info regarding that the NRA is part of the government?

HobbsTiger1 said:

they were indeed a cult

That, of course, is justification to seige private citizens with military hardware right?

Reno didn't "botch" it. She willingly broke the law.

Quast said:

That, of course, is justification to seige private citizens with military hardware right?

Not at all. I do not agree with the actions taken by the Janet Reno and those under her, erm, command. And the final assault that did indeed break the law in the governments name was badly botched, legal or not it could have been done with less fuckup.

The facts about Waco are, as I lived them and now understand them fully: The Branch Dividians were a cult, they held and acted upon religious beliefs that makes it little doubt that they were a cult. They had some sort of arms in there (dont say lolol bomb planted by govies within) otherwise the place wouldnt have blown like it did, and Koresh wasnt really secret about it. The raid and assault on the compound at Ruby Ridge was indeed illegal. It was also done poorly, if the aim was to kill the Dividians it could have been done without the loss of federal lives (but lolol they didn't want to cover it up...lololol), and if they simply wanted to assault the place (as I believe) they could have done it without blowing it and burning it. Afterwards there were congressional hearings that did no good and like all politics presented enough fact mixed with the lie to make it believable. That is the sum of it. Now why is this in a WTC thread :P

Because it became a conspiracy theory rant.

And I personally believe that JFK was shot by a single gunman armed with either a scoped/modified M-14 or Druganov.

XDelusion said:

I've smoked myself retarded today...

Actually you can't blame the weed, to error is human.

Now it all makes sense.

pilottobombadier said:

And I personally believe that JFK was shot by a single gunman armed with either a scoped/modified M-14 or Druganov.

Not trying to dismiss your beliefs, but in ballistic tests, the Carcano found in the book depository was more than satisfactory to make the wounds. It was a pretty powerful round, as I understand it.

XDelusion said:

The government said the fires got out of hand and leveled the building, but Larry Silverstein who owns the building, admits to having had the building "pulled" which means demolished.

I've seen this particular "fact" debunked time and time again. Supposedly, he meant "pulled" as in to pull the fire fighters out of the building. Whether or not you believe that is up to you.

I am going to go to this movie and laugh like it was a comedy, hope I get better results from that crowd than in Saving Private Ryan and Titanic.

The worse thing in today's world are people like us, we shove everything down our throats, and never ask questions....

Snarboo said:

Supposedly, he meant "pulled" as in to pull the fire fighters out of the building. Whether or not you believe that is up to you.

Of course I don't believe it since when someone says he's going to pull a building it means demolishing it, even though in this case the context may not be crystal clear. You should've used ""s for the word "debunked" instead.

Snarboo said:
I've seen this particular "fact" debunked time and time again.

Ah, so you're unsure it's a fact and sure it's been debunked? I'm wondering what your definition of debunked would be, especially in this context where the building is falling as if destroyed by controlled demolition.

Supposedly, he meant "pulled" as in to pull the fire fighters out of the building.

Who's to suppose that? That's what he said after being asked for explanations. Early on, in the heat of it all, what he said is that they should "pull it", not pull "out of it" or anything of the sort.

Whether or not you believe that is up to you.

Belief has little or no place here; it's a matter of investigating the event, especially because it looks quite like controlled demolition and the recent owner of the buildings apparently made a statement that it was demolished in such a way, right after the event happened.

Actually the denial of demolishing is itself a suspicious event. We see the building fall the way it does, and a statement that goes with that phenomenon, and we can say "ah okay", but later they deny it. To Silverstein at the moment it may have seemed stupid to deny the demolishing in the face of video footage an possible related remarks (from workers, specialists, or whatever), and why deny that a building was demolished after the "attack" as part of the clean-up? But that meant explaining how the building was bomb-rigged under the circumstances (the work on the two towers, the fact that it was on fire on some floors, and the time elapsed), and thus they retracted, but not at a cost; Silverstein's remark and the building's flooring at free fall speed with gradual effect on the floors, downwards like a standard controlled demolition.

L. Brent Bozell III, president of the conservative Media Research Center and founder of the Parents Television Council — best known for its campaigns against indecency on television and for stiffer penalties on broadcasters — called it “a masterpiece” and sent an e-mail message to 400,000 people saying, “Go see this film.”

Cal Thomas, the syndicated columnist, wrote last Thursday that it was “one of the greatest pro-American, pro-family, pro-faith, pro-male, flag-waving, God Bless America films you will ever see.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/movies/27stone.html?ex=1154664000&en=78294e5f10c6c221&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Anything is possible i guess...

However i have a hard time believing that our government would sell us out that way. What would the government gain by this as both restoration/cleanup, victim reimbursement, and the afganastan/iraq wars have cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars already.