250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns'

reply to post by OrionStars


Really? Where in that post is the World Trade Center mentioned? Where is it mentioned that he was rewarded with government contracts without following normal bidding procedures?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

Sorry, but there are no spikes that would indicate explosive devices were used.

You still live in a state of denial, when you must have read this before :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and still choose to ignore the clear evidence of human intervention in all three WTC collapses, especially for WTC 7.

If you can't counter my arguments for the WTC 7 collapse, then you subsequently can't counter the same argumentation for the WTC 1 and 2 collapses.

The pre-collapse seismic peaks in all three collapses are near identical, but one could argue that for WTC 1 and 2 these seismic peaks drown in the overall "noise", compared to their global collapses "noises".
But such an argument becomes undefendable, when at the same time, one sees my WTC 7 evidence.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Really? Where in that post is the World Trade Center mentioned? Where is it mentioned that he was rewarded with government contracts without following normal bidding procedures?

How did we end up in Iraq and Afghanistan? Was that a direct result of profitting off 9/11/2001 by so many in the military-industrial complex?

Did you see the reference in the excerpt I posted related to military contracts finally picking up for the controlled demolition industry in 2003? When did the US unilaterally invade Iraq? Which contractors and sub-contractors did the clean-up of the WTC site after 9/11/2001? Did they access US bureaucracy contracts to do that clean-up?

Did you see the reference in the excerpt I posted related to military contracts finally picking up for the controlled demolition industry in 2003? When did the US unilaterally invade Iraq? Which contractors and sub-contractors did the clean-up of the WTC site after 9/11/2001? Did they access US bureaucracy contracts to do that clean-up?

Umm thats not what it said.

Military work slowed down

THATS what it said. I guess I could cut and paste the whole article...so everyone could see that the majority of the times that the government was mentioned, it was in the manner of complaints about government rules........

Wait, wait..people actually believe that WTC7 collapsed due to the fires????

I thought Official Story believers moved on to it being pulled, in a couple of hours no less, due to it's danger of inevitable collapse...yea I know, but that's where many have gone.
Obviously, the biggest smoking gun is that it's impossible to explain that collapse physically. The building didn't just collapse "due to fires" it fell directly into it's own footprint in under 10 seconds. The probability of that not being due to CD is not something you should be considering unless there are no other options. I'm laughing at the windows on other, non-inflamed, floors exploding due to the fire's intensity... Guess what those explosions suggest? This world is in a sad state, it's depressing.

That's not even mentioning all the other circumstances involved like Silverstein's WTC insurance and 'Pull it' line..BBC annoucing it's collapse before it happened...mention of firefighters already aware it was coming down from superiors....blah blah

The stubbornist of minds will refute a 'smoking gun' with the possibility of it being not 100% definite. That says nothing for probability(other than it not being 100%); which is deeply factored and increased by the number of 'smoking guns' suggesting the same premise of what happened. I don't have the time to read these 250 smoking guns, and I'm sure many are probably reaching, but really I can come up with just 5-10 smoking guns and/or coincidences (the ultimate smoking gun..) on the WTC-7 alone that renders the possibility of it collapsing, due to fire, way past the state of improbable. Of course the mind locks won't break because of this, but maybe it can help push people to move towards the break?
I'm just in shock. I'm glad there are people who are pushing the evidence on here because the counters will expose themselves I'm sure.



I editted this post because I was ranting a lot and it doesn't offer anything logical other than insult and confusion of other members.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by 1nelove]

[edit on 31-1-2008 by 1nelove]

The 250 links this guy provided is astonishing. Hats off.

killtown.911review.org...

reply to post by Bunch

bunch...i'm a skeptic too...but if you can tell me what other skyscraper-like building has ever, in history, spanning the whole world, come down in the same way, that was NOT, I REPEAT NOT, done as a controlled demolition. then i would lend more creedence to the government explanation of how the buildings DID come down.

reply to post by IvanZana


Then you obviously have not read this entire thread, because the majority of his "smoking guns" arent even warm bullets as shown by myself and others.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Which contractors and sub-contractors did the clean-up of the WTC site after 9/11/2001? Did they access US bureaucracy contracts to do that clean-up?

Swampfox must be really niave to think that there was a bidding war for the clean-up of 9/11. Unless, I'm taking what this argument is about the wrong way?

Controlled Demolition Inc., cleaned up at ground zero. They also cleaned up at Oaklahoma City. As far as I'm aware they are the only CD company with a securtity clearance.

reply to post by Griff


Griff, no I am not niave (naive) and yes you are not reading it right. I pointed out that a demolition professional said that the amount of explosives that would be needed to drop the towers, would have blown out windows all over lower Manhattan. Orion felt the need to state this individual's opinion was invalid because he profitted from expanded government contracts post 9/11 (which he did not)

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


That's strange. I was under the impression from the official story that severing just one floors worth of support would cause the upper block to come crashing down and globally collapse the entire tower.

Which is it?

Millions of tons of TNT or just one floors worth?

Seems like your expert doesn't believe the official story either if that's what it would take.

reply to post by Griff


First, it was more than one floor that had its support damaged, Second, no one said "millions" of anything. The gentleman I originally quoted, fully believes that it was the impact damage and fire that brought down the buildings that day

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
First, it was more than one floor that had its support damaged,

OK. How many floors do you want to go? 10? It still wouldn't be enough TNT to "blow out all the windows in lower Manhattan" would it?

Second, no one said "millions" of anything.

So, how many tons of TNT would "blow out all the windows in lower Manhattan" then?

The gentleman I originally quoted, fully believes that it was the impact damage and fire that brought down the buildings that day

He can believe what he wants. And as far as I'm concerned can't be trusted because he DOES get his paycheck from government contracts. No one wants to bite the hand that feeds them.

[edit on 2/4/2008 by Griff]

The amount of explosives necessary to turn the twin towers into rubble was his idea of how much explosives would blow out all the windows. And, any detailed proof as to how much of his income comes from government sources?

If you are going to accuse him of lying because he might or might not have a government contract, you might want to dig up some proof.

The amount of explosives necessary to turn the twin towers into rubble was his idea of how much explosives would blow out all the windows. And, any detailed proof as to how much of his income comes from government sources?

If you are going to accuse him of lying because he might or might not have a government contract, you might want to dig up some proof.

Double post removed due to Microsoft Vista and its touchy settings.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by Swampfox46_1999]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
If you are going to accuse him of lying because he might or might not have a government contract, you might want to dig up some proof.

It amazes me how often when someone says "I think" or "It is my opinion" or "As far as I'm concerned" that someone has to come back with....."prove it". I don't have to prove squat since it is my belief. My belief is my proof.

• August 30, 2001 - Department of Transportation conducts an exercise involving a potentially high-jacked plane and someone on it calling from a cell phone among other aspects of the scenario that one participants describes it as being "very strange" when the actual event happened on Sept. 11.



MTI Report S-01-02

"ELLEN ENGLEMAN:
I’d like to answer that on behalf of the department on an intermodal aspect too. Perhaps you’ve heard this reported. Ironically, fortuitously, take your choice, 12 days prior to the incident on September 11th, we were going though a tabletop exercise. It was actually much more than a tabletop… in preparation for the Olympic games, at the Department of Transportation, which was a full intermodal exercise. During that exercise, part of the scenario, interestingly enough, involved a potentially highjacked plane and someone calling on a cell phone, among other aspects of the scenario that were very strange when twelve days later, as you know, we had the actual event." - Mineta Transportation Institute (10/30/01)

killtown.911review.org...,2001-DOT_exercise

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
The amount of explosives necessary to turn the twin towers into rubble was his idea of how much explosives would blow out all the windows.

I would like to point out this logical fallacy. Either it be the person you are talking about or you.

The official line is that the kinetic energy of the cap falling into the rest of the building was enough to turn the towers into rubble.

Therefore, only a few floors would have to be blasted away.

So, why do we always hear that it would take SOOOOOOO much explosives to do the very same thing? When the official story says it can happen with ZERO.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
The amount of explosives necessary to turn the twin towers into rubble was his idea of how much explosives would blow out all the windows.

So, why do we always hear that it would take SOOOOOOO much explosives to do the very same thing? When the official story says it can happen with ZERO.

LOL, as you notice you got no reply from the 'debunkers' for you schooled them yet again. GJ

There Alice in WOnderland logic has caught up with them.


They know like all of you should know by now that the World Trade Center was brought down with specifically placed explosive charges to help steer the upper part of the towers as came down like wreaking ball.