Trillion Dollar Conspiracy... 9/11 Mounting Evidence...

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA if it isn't that hoax, it is any one of several other hoaxes or flat out lies that truthers tend to use. So why are you so upset?

If you cannot comprehend my grievance, then you might not be intelligent enough to discuss the topic. If your unfamiliar with disinformation there are many threads on ATS you can read up on and then come back once you have a better grasp on the matter.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

You do keep trying to insult me. And you do keep failing. I understand your grievance. What you fail to understand is that when you refer to the post in question as a 'ridiculous claim' and are upset that you, and your claims get tarred with the same brush, those of us who have actually talked to people, read reports, been to the areas in question.....see ALL of the claims made by the truth community as ridiculous and easily shown as such with a wee bit of honest research.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

those of us who have actually talked to people, read reports, been to the areas in question.....see ALL of the claims made by the truth community as ridiculous and easily shown as such with a wee bit of honest research.

Did that and did that. That is why I am here. The reports are BS and the people are sceptical of the OS.

You know what would quell suspicions about global collapse? A visual simulation of it. Can you point me to a visual simulation of global collapse initiation?

I will help you out with WTC7

WTC 7 collapse simulation

There is a list of short clips and I hope everyone sees them. I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I saw it. I cant wait to see what they have for 1 and 2. Ill make the popcorn, you find the video.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

The question is, what does it look like when a heavily damaged, burning building collapses? You are looking for answers that no one can give definitively because there was nothing inside the buildings to indicate exactly how things occured. There are not any complete/accurate reports of the damage that was suffered by any of the buildings. ANY investigations into the collapses of the Towers and WTC 7, will be educated guesses. Period.

What we DO know, is there is absolutely no evidence of any kind that any of the three buildings were wired to implode. No wiring was found, no blasting cap remains, no nothing. Controlled demolitions are very distinctive...and the charges can be heard for MILES. There was none of that on 9/11. The only thing you have is that the collapses....kinda looked like a demolition...but, for all we know, you fly airliners into buildings and let them burn..that is EXACTLY what the collapses will look like.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA

The question is, what does it look like when a heavily damaged, burning building collapses? You are looking for answers that no one can give definitively because there was nothing inside the buildings to indicate exactly how things occured. There are not any complete/accurate reports of the damage that was suffered by any of the buildings. ANY investigations into the collapses of the Towers and WTC 7, will be educated guesses. Period.

This is true. The window for fact-finding closed about 12 years ago.

What we DO know, is there is absolutely no evidence of any kind that any of the three buildings were wired to implode. No wiring was found, no blasting cap remains, no nothing. Controlled demolitions are very distinctive...and the charges can be heard for MILES. There was none of that on 9/11. The only thing you have is that the collapses....kinda looked like a demolition...but, for all we know, you fly airliners into buildings and let them burn..that is EXACTLY what the collapses will look like.

A building the size of the twin towers has never been imploded before. I am not so sure they could have been with standard methods. Right there suggests that if your looking for evidence of explosives, it would have to be outside conventional means. IF explosives were used, there was clearly no effort to contain the collapse.

Your argument is asking for it both ways. We can not verify any reports because it is based on something that has never been seen before. That means you can not exclude explosives because this specific application would have never been done before. IF explosives were used...

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Which brings us back to, the buildings occupants would have noticed their offices being taken apart to apply ANY kind of demolition rig over the months it would have taken. Again, absolutely NO evidence of a controlled demolition.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Which brings us back to, the buildings occupants would have noticed their offices being taken apart to apply ANY kind of demolition rig over the months it would have taken. Again, absolutely NO evidence of a controlled demolition.

Who said controlled demolition? Did you read my last post?

And yes it could be done without occupants knowing WHAT was done. Base-building needs maintenance and upgrades all the time. Occupants must comply.

a reply to: MALBOSIA You've no idea what it takes to bring down a building do you? There is no way to rig a building without people noticing.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA You've no idea what it takes to bring down a building do you? There is no way to rig a building without people noticing.

You don't know what it took to bring down the towers. It has never been done before. You keep saying "no way it could happen" and you don't even know what happened. Your being rather ignorant.

a reply to: MALBOSIA. Wow, insults again. No, see, I know that three heavily damaged, burning buildings collapsed that day, no added assistance necessary. And, I know what it takes to wire a building for demolition, and you cannot hide it.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA. Wow, insults again. No, see, I know that three heavily damaged, burning buildings collapsed that day, no added assistance necessary.

You just finished explaining to me that the reports are a guess and now here you are "knowing" as though the theory is fact.

And, I know what it takes to wire a building for demolition, and you cannot hide it.

There are many ways to skin a cat, and since containment and public safety were not a concern, it leaves any option open. But you believe that standard CD is the ONLY way to bring down a building.

You are more than welcome to believe what ever you like but that is really all you have, A belief that was narrated to you in the hours following the attacks and every bit of research that has been done since was done with the intent of reinforcing pre conceived notions dictated by politicians and corporate media.

a reply to: MALBOSIA And that, is where you continue to fail. There are many ways to destroy a building. And every last one of them leaves behind things that were not present that day.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA And that, is where you continue to fail. There are many ways to destroy a building. And every last one of them leaves behind things that were not present that day.

Because a crime scene was disposed of as quickly as it could have. 4 months ahead of schedule and way under budget. What was the clean-up bill? 1.3 billion. What was the commissions budget? Heck, even if you added up all the separate investigations ( NIST, ACSC, FBI and Commission) it would not even come to half the clean-up cost. The administration was willing to spend 2 billion on clean-up. They could have spent 100 billion investigating and it would have been more than justified. How much has the war on terror cost?

a reply to: MALBOSIA Every last bit of debris went to locations where it was gone through. No evidence was found to show any form of demolitions.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA Every last bit of debris went to locations where it was gone through. No evidence was found to show any form of demolitions.

Tisk tisk. Every last bit of debris was not "gone through" and none of it was tested for explosives.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
and none of it was tested for explosives.

Well, there was no signs of explosives being used, and how did they get past the explosive sniffing dogs anyway?

a reply to: MALBOSIA And there would still be evidence of the items used to make the explosives detonate. Nothing was found.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA And there would still be evidence of the items used to make the explosives detonate. Nothing was found.

Yeah, you have mentioned that a dozen times in this thread. Was evidence of explosives looked for? Since there is no standard method of blowing up 100+ story towers, what would the investigators be looking for? You KNOW how they would do it and what they would use?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
and none of it was tested for explosives.

Well, there was no signs of explosives being used, and how did they get past the explosive sniffing dogs anyway?

Sorry I missed you Bruce, I am usually not online during your shift. Maybe this weekend...

a reply to: MALBOSIA

A few hundred miles of wiring....no matter what method used, there would be a few hundred miles of it. And yes, it would be distinctive from normal electrical wiring.