Brave WV resident to hold 9/11 truth meeting

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


you can always tell when someone is an old dog in the debunking game, because they just keep saying, "it's been thoroughly debunked", when actually, it's been thoroughly wildly speculated using extreme coincidence as the underlying explanation for EVERYTHING.

it's like debunkers think the general populace has no horse sense(the only real sense worthy of having). you can isolate facts, and pseudo-facts, and rationalise them one by one, but no debunker has ever given a good argument in toto.

conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, have both facts and a coherent motive and modus operandi which explain EVERYTHING, from insider trading to molten metal to impossible cellphone calls to 20 million dollar bad science reports to actual recordings of booms and flashes and people warning that buildings are about to blow up to bish saying he saw something that never existed(first strike on television) to lying about WMDs to justify war to rovian "create your reality" to PNAC "new pearl harbour" to ad infinitum.....

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Kleverone... you should learn facts before you present them as such. There is not one report stating that there was steel melting in any of the towers OR in the rubble....

thanks,

CO

No...but there are eyewitness accounts who disagree with that statement. You can present your evidence as fact and I'll present mine.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


The area in which I live is full of mindless redneck thugs that would have no problem beating someone with different beliefs. America is far from Utopia.

WTC Needed Repair in 2001

Larry Silverstein and friends knew all this. Especially that the Towers needed some $200 million in renovations and improvements, mostly related to removal and/or replacement of building materials declared health hazards since the Towers were built. WTC was labeled an "asbestos bombshell."

In fact, the Port Authority thought of WTC as a dinosaur, trying several times to get permits to demolish the buildings for liability reasons. The PA was turned down. The asbestos problem was no secret. The sole reason the complex was still up till 9/11 was the cost of taking the Twin Towers down floor by floor. Especially since the PA was prohibited by law from demolishing the buildings. Got that? Demolishing prohibited by law but doable by an act of god or godlessness.

Other developers had gone broke by the mandated renovations. Two hundred million dollars were an entire year's revenue from the Trade Towers. So the 9/11 collapse of the Twin Towers was the final solution, so to speak.
It is inportant to note they tried several times to get permits to demolish the buildings .
Thats a FACT!

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by Taxi-Driver

 

when the establishment is a hiding, lying band of corrupt evil thugs, it is good to be anti-establishment.

Nice Abby Hoffman imitation there, Billybob. I guess this Illuminati/ NWO/Boogieman is one S-L-O-W moving machine... a precise, omnipotent, and maniacal machine that never really pulls the proverbial trigger.... And the beat goes on... in your mind.

Had you ever been in a position of power or influence you might realize how ridiculously mundane and cautious it all is. Of course a Tom Clancy/ James Bond fantasy is much more fun to imagine, thus you have a cool little hobby and accompanying mindset.. good for you.

Originally posted by cashlink
WTC Needed Repair in 2001

Larry Silverstein and friends knew all this. Especially that the Towers needed some $200 million in renovations and improvements, mostly related to removal and/or replacement of building materials declared health hazards since the Towers were built. WTC was labeled an "asbestos bombshell."

Nice little story there cashlink, I guess you know WTC 2 had ZERO asbestos, and WTC1 only had about 1/3 of the lower floors with the stuff.. right?
So your "FACT" of "TRUTH" is they wanted to demolish WTC 2 because of asbestos, yet it had NONE... hmmm sounds like you bit on some half-twisted story.

I bet you heard that the WTC complex was losing money too. Although the towers were at 95% occupancy. Your allusion that the Landlord would kill all of his tenants and destroy his profitable cash cow for some insurance claim is goofy, and it only gets more goofy by the day, because everyday that goes by without RENT Larry Silverstein LOSES money.

reply to post by Taxi-Driver


it is those who think they are in power who are deluded.

the android meme rules.

only observant, text hungry abstract thinkers need apply to that school of thought, though. i won't try and convince you.

i can do a rough picture with this quote from jesus christ superstar, though:

"you have nothing in your hands
any power you have comes from far beyond
everything is fixed and you can't change it"

[edit on 11-3-2008 by billybob]

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Since when is it brave to be duped by obvious anti-establishment propaganda?

Whats worse is being brainwashed by the media to believe everything they tell you. To believe the media propaganda.

People that still believe the official story are living in a safe fantasy world afraid th face the reallity that something might have happened that day other then what the media has told them.

Originally posted by stikkinikki
So how did they bring it down? Did they chain bulldozers to the uprights or did they use explosives? Are building implosions standard operating procedure to prevent spreading of fire? Are there explosives in every city just in case a building catches on fire?

Well building 6 was brought down by cables and heavy equipment. But building 7 was a bigger building. But only needed a few beam cutters to bring it down because of the way the building was constructed.

If the incident command thought the buidling was going to cause more damage then they can demolish the building.

They had demo crews on scene, and fire rescue units. Fire rescue have the equipment and knowledge to cut beams for rescue, and of course the demo teams would have explosives.




[edit on 11-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by Taxi-Driver


FYI.

On April 26th of 2001 the Board of Commissioners for

the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey awarded

Silverstein Properties and mall-owner Westfield

America a 99-year-lease on the following assets: The

Twin Towers, World Trade Center Buildings 4 and 5,

two 9-story office buildings, and 400,000 square feet

of retail space.

The partners' winning bid was $3.2 billion for

holdings estimated to be worth more than $8 billion.

JP Morgan Chase, a prestigious investment-bank that's

the flagship firm of its kind for Rockefeller family

interests, advised the Port Authority, another body

long influenced by banker and builder David

Rockefeller, his age then 85, in the negotiations.

The lead partner and spokesperson for the winning

bidders, Larry Silverstein, age 70, already

controlled more than 8 million square feet of New

York City real estate. WTC 7 and the nearby Equitable

Building were prime among these prior holdings. Larry

Silverstein also owned Runway 69, a nightclub in

Queens that was alleged 9 years ago to be laundering

money made through sales of Laotian heroin.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861

million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on

the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated

investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This

building's collapse resulted in a profit of about

$500 million.

Inside job.... YES......

To put these events in perspective, its just like for

example a person leases an expensive house, and

immediately takes out an insurance policy covering

the entire value of the house and specifically

covering bomb attacks. Six weeks later two bombs go

off in the house, separated by an hour. The house

burns down, and the lessor immediately sues the

insurance company to pay him twice the value of the

house, and ultimately wins. The lessor also gets the

city to dispose of the wreckage, excavate the site,

and help him build a new house on the site.

Pull it - whether it means cables or explosives its

still a form of demolition. It takes weeks to prepare

for such a demolition. Firefighters reported small

pockets of fires etc....Just like the firefighters

that reported fires inside the Towers which they said

can be knocked out by 2 lines.....and the list goes

on.

Also ask your self this all the WTC complexes

collapased due to mysterious fires or damage by

debris (so we were told), but others like the

Millennium Hilton hotel which was closer to the

towers did not collapse and still stands as of today.

Any educated person could see that there are too many

coincedences with what happened prior to and on 9/11.



The Twin Towers had large amounts of asbestos

fireproofing which would have necessitated costly

removal had they remained standing. The exact amount

and distribution of the asbestos in the Towers

remains unclear, like other details of the buildings'

construction and history, but the evidence suggests

that the cost of its removal may have rivaled the

value of the buildings themselves.

Evidence of Asbestos
Two independent lines of evidence may help to

establish the magnitude of the asbestos problem in

the Twin Towers: analysis of samples of the dust from

the Towers' collapses, and reports about the

application and removal of asbestos in the buildings

prior to their destruction.

A region of several square miles was blanketed by

fine powder resulting from the explosive collapses of

the Twin Towers. This powder, consisting of the

pulverized remains of non-metallic components and

contents of the Towers, contained significant

percentages of asbestos. 1 An analysis of dust

within three days of the attack found that some of

the dust was four percent asbestos. 2 This asbestos

release may be a public health time bomb, because

thousands of people breathed dust from the collapses.

It remains to be seen how many if them will become

victims of the EPA's false assurances that the air

was safe to breathe.

A report by the Arnold & Porter law firm provides

some details on the asbestos application and removal.

The WTC Towers were built from 1968 to 1972. A slurry

mixture of asbestos and cement was sprayed on as

fireproofing material. But this practice was banned

by the New York City Council in 1971. This halted the

spraying, but not before hundreds of tons of the

material had been applied. Some but not all of it was

later removed in an abatement program.

While providing no quantitative data beyond that

there were "hundreds of tons" of the

asbestos-containing material, we note that the ban

went into effect near the end of the Towers'

construction, so we can assume that asbestos covered

the steel skeletons through most of the height of

each of the Towers.

The High Cost of Asbestos Abatement
Asbestos is a mineral, airborne fibers of which can

cause severe and untreatable respiratory disease,

with typical latencies of several decades. The

recognition of the toxicity of asbestos has led to

legislation for its survey and removal from

structures. The removal is expensive because the

removal operation must be quarantined and subject to

rigorous decontamination procedures. Removal of

asbestos used as structural fireproofing in steel

framed high-rises is complicated by the fact that the

fireproofing covers an intricate lattice of steel in

the most difficult-to-access places.

Some sense of the cost of removing the asbestos from

the Twin Towers can be obtained by the example of 55

Broad Street. The removal of asbestos in that

building cost $70 million when it was empty. That was

five times the cost of the building's construction 15

years before. 3

Another example is the 60-story Montparnasse Tower in

Paris. Experts estimate that the removal of asbestos

from this building would take three years with full

evacuation, and ten years if the building were to

remain occupied during the operation. 4

According to Eric Darton's 1999 book on the Twin

Towers, the Port Authority had planned to pump

$800,000 into the Twin Towers for a variety of

improvements, the most costly of which was asbestos

abatement (not removal).

I suppose THAT is the story you bit on-- why didn't you cite the quote?

Anyway-- it is riddled with slant, rhetoric, and half-truths.

The Cpt. Oreo Palmer citation is but one example of propaganda meant to decieve and skew the picture.

It is sad people don't have the skill to see through biased, erronious sources.

reply to post by Taxi-Driver


it is riddled with slant, rhetoric, and half-truths.

The Cpt. Oreo Palmer citation is but one example of propaganda meant to decieve and skew the picture.

Please enlightened me of proof of the slants, rhetoric, and half-truths?
And do explain what is propaganda. Please show me what truths you have to present us?
We would like to be enlightened!
So far you have not showed us your side I would love to see your proof!
Give us something, something to suport your truth.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Since when is it brave to be duped by obvious anti-establishment propaganda?

Whats worse is being brainwashed by the media to believe everything they tell you. To believe the media propaganda.

What media? What are they telling me? I cannot tell you the last time I turned on a T.V to watch anything other than a DVD. I read-- constantly. I read this forum--constantly. Not exactly sheltering me from a wide array of viewpoints, is it, Ultima.

People that still believe the official story are living in a safe fantasy world afraid th face the reallity that something might have happened that day other then what the media has told them.

Safe fantasy world? How Ironic... What is more safe? To live in a country so well run, so impenetrable, that its leaders and select nameless omnipotent boogiemen are the only ones in the world that can inflict damage upon its citizenry. Americans are the only ones smart enough to devise a seemless diobolical plan and execute it to perfection, and the werewithall, and conviction to maintain a secret of how we shamelessly murdered our fellow friends and neighbors, just to pad the pockets of a few distant rich dudes.

And it would have gone off without a hitch, if it weren't for those meddling kids---in their mommies basement, on their computers, all tubin n' googlin' the really hard to find information. Ya know, the same old subversive stuff, like MKULTRA, Paperclip, Lizard men from the planet Nibiru, Terrorstorm, Zeitgeist, and of course the "Gone with the Wind" of modern day science-- Loose Change. Pfffbt.

Put a fork in the Troof, Ultima. No one is really buying it anymore. As you can see by the reaction you recieve on other forums such as EBFW... Have they ran you out on a rail yet? Banned from yet another site?

Not exactly just a few holders-on to the most accurrate, cohesive explaination of the events on 9/11... I would call it an overwhelming, and growing majority. Not because of media "brainwashing" but simply because it is backed up with precident, evidence, and facts. As opposed to rhetoric, fallacy, cherry-picked quotes basterdizing context, fakery through editing footage, and outright lies and misrepresentations.

I bet if you had ventured to EBFW in 2006 with your schtick you would have recieved some support-- now in 2008, you are treated as a net-lepper. Just like the guys with the 9/11 signs at any public gathering. It won't be long before it is just like a Westburo Baptist church freak-out action.

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by Taxi-Driver

 

it is riddled with slant, rhetoric, and half-truths.

The Cpt. Oreo Palmer citation is but one example of propaganda meant to decieve and skew the picture.

Please enlightened me of proof of the slants, rhetoric, and half-truths?

You DO know that Captain Oreo palmer was just arriving at the skylobby level of the South tower when he made his last transmission...ever. "Two lines to control the fire" *BUT* The fires were raging on the four storys above him, and the building collapsed moments after he radioed that message. This is confirmed with undeniable video evidence of the placement of the fires from many different sources.

So there is a glaring example.

And do explain what is propaganda.

Propaganda- noun
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.

Please show me what truths you have to present us?
We would like to be enlightened!
So far you have not showed us your side I would love to see your proof!
Give us something, something to suport your truth.

If you cannot find it, you don't want to find it.. it is really that simple. I chose to look at BOTH sides equally then make an informed decision based not on emotion or fancy, but on my own life experience, accumulated knowledge, and source crediblity.






[edit on 11-3-2008 by Taxi-Driver]

I don't personally believe the towers were brought down for any other reason than being an environmental bombshell. Look at all the incapacitated first responders. I wonder just what the heck they've got up there in space to blow these puppies to dust.
No one drools at the potential our own gov precipitated this action. We were devastated, and still are. But what with the airline puts and so much data, it is very difficult to think otherwise. And now we own the second leading producer of oil, and we are paying 3.43 for gas. They have us by the short and curleys. A much larger force is at work here.
edit sp of course


[edit on 11-3-2008 by jpm1602]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Canis Lupus
Why would they demolish any building unless they destroyed every single building. If they are lying about even a few things, how can we trust any of the story. The government is keeping secrets from us and it is wrong.

Building 7 was brought down becasue the fire chiefs were afraid fires would jump to other buildings. Also with the damage on the South side of the building would have caused damage to other buidlings if it collapsed on its own.

How did it get rigged to be demolished so quickly... Demo setups take an awful long time for most things, let alone a building of that size. It was a hardened structure as well was it not because of the stuff it stored?? I believe it along with WTC1,2 (closure/power outage for a few days, bomb dog removal, concrete dust appearing everywhere presumably from drilled holes for explosives, sudden closed floor renovation) were then pre-rigged with explosives.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by GhostR1der]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well building 6 was brought down by cables and heavy equipment. But building 7 was a bigger building. But only needed a few beam cutters to bring it down because of the way the building was constructed.

if it was as simple as cutting a few key beams...why is it so far outside possibility/probability to believe that a Xton piece of debris from wtc1 didnt happen to damage those same beams? i mean if its that simple it sure could have happened in the chaos of the destruction of wtc1 couldnt it?

If the incident command thought the buidling was going to cause more damage then they can demolish the building.

well, i must have missed that part in my IC training but ok, ill roll with you on that one...but, as YOU should be well aware with your backround, in EMS...LE...or IC....theres an old saying "if it isnt written down, it didnt happen"

so, even on the loose assumption that the IC decided to bring the building down...he CERTAINLY wouldnt do it without documenting it....happen to have a copy of that report to share with us? someones name would be on that order and ive never seen it. care to share?

They had demo crews on scene, and fire rescue units. Fire rescue have the equipment and knowledge to cut beams for rescue, and of course the demo teams would have explosives.

so, which particular demo team was involved? it should be documented somewhere right? because again, no demo teams going to implode a building on a firecheifs say so, IC or not, without documenting it. at the very least they are going to have had to bill the city for the job. or does FDNY or NYPD keep demo guys on hand for just such an occurrance? NYPD EOD? well then someone still had to sign the paperwork to replace the ordinance expended in the job...stuffs not free afterall...even the army keeps track of how much ammo or ordinance it expends as it has to be replaced at some point...always a papertrail. have some info on that that the rest of us dont?

I really have nothing to add except to suggest that you guys take your 'truthers' vs' official story' debate to another thread.

Bunson started this thread about the particular group he realized was starting in his area, not to go through a complete rehash of the for and against debate and another battle between stubborn members. There are plenty of other threads for that.

I'm no moderator, but i know how much it sucks to have your thread hijacked by people wanting to impose their point on view, both sides of the debate have done that here.

Whether you agree with the 9/11 truth movement or not, it is something that exists and promoting it is not a crime (yet). Give the poor OP some slack.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by fooffstarr]

reply to post by ULTIMA1

So you are saying that the Fire Chiefs took the decision to demolish building seven?
In order to do that it, would have been necessary to have planted and rigged the explosive charges BEFORE the first tower had been hit, surely?
Can someone out there tell us how long it would have taken for the Fire Chiefs to obtain a demolition crew and place all necessary charges prior to actual demolition?
I very puzzled by this statement, explanation someone please !

Regards,

Horsegiver.

They had demo crews on scene, and fire rescue units. Fire rescue have the equipment and knowledge to cut beams for rescue, and of course the demo teams would have explosives.

Fire Departments do not demolish buildings! We do not carry explosives
or demo teams! Like how many fire grounds you been on ? What we
do is call in heavy equipment to search the rubble for victims not
knock down buildings. There seem to be some mentally challenged
paranoid fantasy that the FDNY goes around demolishing buildings if they
think too damaged - what they do is evacuate area, establish collapse
zones and wait for building to fall. Just last week battalion passing an
abandoned building in Manhattan notice wall slumping, transmitted a
box alarm for location. Crews waited for building to collapse - stalled
train traffic in area for hours. This is what happens at fireground - not
"It don't look so good lets blow it up"

STOP.

Please, just stop, take a deep breath.

There are hundreds of threads of this childish bickering already.

Go to one of those.