PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by Whyhi
They as in the firemen, as in Larry Silverstein doesn't have the authority to make that call to pull the fireman out.

Silverstein had no authority over anything that day. The firemen were evacuated before the call by chief Nigro.

Why would the people detonating the building be firemen anyways...?

You do know that there were demo crews there by that time?

Also fire rescue crews do have the knowledge and equipment to cut beams.


[edit on 15-2-2010 by REMISNE]

This might scare some people but i think that WTC7 was neither a demolition nor a collapse.

The implications of that are... well.... something of a whole other nature.

Although its plausable that the government could have caused it, why then would the government go at such length to cause devastation? They took out the twin towers, the pentagon and WTC 7. Not to mention the other flight that went down.

See the problem i have with my state of mind right now is that the OS is clearly wrong but at the same time the thought that the government could actually have the ability to pull this off is even more insane.

Hitler set off a fire and that was enough to get people to go to war... so our government decided to take out half of new york for the same cause?

I think something more than muslims attacked us, and our reason for being in the middle east has something to do with it.

reply to post by REMISNE

Silverstein had no authority over anything that day

That's what I just said, he was just telling them what he thought.

You do know that there were demo crews there by that time?

Also fire rescue crews do have the knowledge and equipment to cut beams.

Demolition crews?

Anyways, I'm pretty sure firemen don't have any training or equipment in explosives or demolition. Cutting beams? With what? The jaws of life?

reply to post by downisreallyup


I guess you never heard a firefighter say pull the firefighting operation then? What is a firefighting operation? It. Pull it. Pull what? The firefighting operation.

But what are you wanting to hear?

"You know, we've had such a terrible loss of life, so lets just blow it all up." Suuuurrreee.

Timeline: LS gets a call from the fire commander who is saying they cannot save the building. The firefighters are not going to be able to save the building and it is looking like it is going to be lost. This happens early in the afternoon. Larry mentions he does not want to see anymore lives lost and says maybe the smartest thing to do is to "pull" the firefighting operation. Get the firefighters out of there. So then "THEY" meaning Fire Commander Nigro and the chiefs decide to "pull out" the firefighters around 3-3:30PM. A few firefighters CONFIRM the time they received to "PULL OUT/AWAY" from WTC7 as around 3-3:30PM. So this means firefighters WERE THERE till that time. Even Nigro says it! And then an hour and half later the building comes down.

Originally posted by Crito

When done watching that video [awesome, btw] - watch the second referenced video (bottom at the end - scroll bar), "How to Destroy a 9/11 Truther" hilarious.

reply to post by demonseed

This might scare some people but i think that WTC7 was neither a demolition nor a collapse.

The ability to destroy a building is insignificant next to the power of the force.

but at the same time the thought that the government could actually have the ability to pull this off is even more insane.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Originally posted by Whyhi
Demolition crews?

Controlled demolition Inc. was on scene. Also there is a video of a Manhattan Demolition truck around the towers at the time of the collapse.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure firemen don't have any training or equipment in explosives or demolition. Cutting beams? With what? The jaws of life?

Yes some firemen do have training with explosives. Fire rescue crews have cutting torches and sawsalls.

I suggest you do some research before posting about something you seem to know nothing about.





[edit on 15-2-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE

Controlled demolition Inc. was on scene. Also there is a video of a Manhattan Demolition truck around the towers at the time of the collapse.

You can't be serious.

Yes some firemen do have training with explosives. Fire rescue crews have cutting torches and sawsalls.

Yeah, cutting torches and saws brought it down. Are you sure firefighters have explosives ( Not to be confused with explosives that you would find during a rescue or whatnot ) and or demolitions training ( Would be kind of ironic ).

Edit to add: Cutting torches don't count, fire apparently doesn't effect steel in trutherland

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Whyhi]

Originally posted by GenRadek
Timeline: LS gets a call from the fire commander who is saying they cannot save the building. The firefighters are not going to be able to save the building and it is looking like it is going to be lost. This happens early in the afternoon.

According to chief Nigro's own statement the fire fighters were evacuated from the building before he called the owner.

"For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed."

Originally posted by Whyhi
You can't be serious.

Here is the video with the demolition truck. Watch at about 2:55

www.youtube.com...

Yeah, cutting torches and saws brought it down.

Yes it would be very easy to bring down an already unstable building by cutting some beams.

Fire rescue teams have the knowledge and equipmpent to cut beams for rescue operations. I suggest you do more research before posting.


[edit on 15-2-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by Crito

But he never admitted to anything about demolition! Nothing! Nadda! ZIP!

...

Why would anyone believe people who have no respect for the Geneva Conventions or habeas corpus? They've already proved they have no honor and consider themselves above the law. Killing 3000 of their own citizens doesn't seem that far fetched for the lowlife scumbags running this country.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Crito]

BINGO!

They want me to believe lying scumbag crooks -- and when I say; "This stinks" I'm a Conspiracy Theorist who lives in my parent's basement and I have have some desire to become Social Pariah for the honor of having something interesting to say.

>> I quit believing in Santa at age 4. I told my parents he didn't have enough time to get down every chimney and he also couldn't fit through our chimney.

Astrology didn't have an appeal for me -- because anyone who believed it could tell me something about my day and personality, could not predict my sign based on my day or what I told them of my personality.

I didn't do drugs in college -- not because I believed that Pot was dangerous -- I didn't do it because I didn't want to cave to peer pressure -- and because it was illegal. Fair or not, you can go to prison.

I didn't EVER get a lease on a car, because I realized it was a rip-off. I got a 15 year fixed interest mortgage on my house because I know that for me, it's better to get rid of all debt, than to spend money on ANY kind of investment that is not an insider trade with a Senator in your pocket.

I didn't join AboveTopSecret because I worry about Chem Trails-- my dad was a pilot and explained to me when I was ten it was due to compressed hot air going through less dense cold air -- we already built pesticides into our food -- so who needs chem trials to effect the population? I do believe there are aliens, but I figure if there are UFOs, and they go from aluminum aircraft to glowing in 30 years -- then they are likely terrestrial. But anyway -- I joined after 9.11.

>> My point is, I've always been a guy who never followed the crowd, made up my own mind, never made a decision to spite anyone or in spite of anyone. I don't have a belief that cannot be proven or disproven.

I do have some spiritual notions, but they are based upon the realization that we humans are flyspecks in the Universe, and we don't know what we don't know. If you didn't have someone calling your cell phone, and never heard of a cell phone -- you wouldn't know that microwaves were moving billions of bits of information through your body every minute. I'm not however, interested in religion for more than philosophy and common human ethics. If God wants me to believe the bible, he should come down here and tell me -- I'd do the same for him.

I don't believe that 9.11 was an inside job for any other reason than the Bush Crime Family had; motive, opportunity, means, and the ethics do do the deed -- and it's a lot more plausible than the idea that box cutters defeated a $2 Trillion dollar security network designed to keep out Soviet bombers with box cutters and the will of Allah -- because a deity MUST be on their side to have pulled this off.

Oh, and Dick Cheney was sitting at the NORAD bunker BEFORE we knew that someone had hijacked our planes. LINK
LINK 2

Another coincidence, the change in procedure, limiting the authority to shoot down planes from top ranking field commanders, to ONLY Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, went into effect July of 2001. Think of that coincidence and read this other little white lie of Dick Cheney's...
The weasel trick that made this controversy, is that Cheney was in one bunker and then transferred to a second one. Makes sense when he was scheduled to run his training exercise that day that he would already be there. But that he lied about it -- well, why not? That old zombie lies about everything just on principle. It's fun for him -- hence is uncontrollable "William Krystal" sneer that manages to make one side of his face smile.

Also, Dick Cheney's little war exercise with NORAD was the only time, before or since 9/11 that he had anything to do with terrorist security and planning. I guess with people as gullible as we seem to be in America, you don't have to put up a pretense of caring about security, you can just tell people that you care, over and over again.

We only know about the NORAD tapes, years after the event -- and I REMEMBER, when discussing that they were running 3 drills that involved an attack on America as proof that they actually DID THINK ABOUT TERRORISTS FLYING PLANES INTO BUILDINGS -- that I was called of course, a "Conspiracy theorist" and now, we are debating the FACT of the drills, and new theories explain why it's no big deal we have drills that cover exactly the event that is going on.

And then the same thing happens in England with the subway bombings.

And then in the Iraq invasion, special forces stage a bogus rescue of a female troop who was in an Iraqi hospital. I just wonder, why there is this huge burden of proof to say; "maybe they made it up" when we have so many examples of them "making crap up." The Iraqis are so evil that the biggest proof of their tyranny is a staged event after a fake documents to make up a reason for the war.


>> Now of course, we are SO WORRIED ABOUT IRAN'S NUKES. Didn't George Bush's father arrange for the religious radicals in Iran to get weapons -- does anyone NOT remember Iran/Contra? Ollie North admitted to selling weapons to the Mullahs, and then used the money to buy drugs -- to complete the "circle of wealth" and buy more weapons to hire pro-corporate killers in Latin America.

There are thousands being imprisoned in Iran, and many being killed PROTESTING their rigged election -- and the only thing PROPPING UP, their evil, dangerous regime -- is the US sitting on three borders and threatening them with a few naval fleets and nuclear destruction. We only had the hint of nukes in Cuba, and half our country was ready for war.

What's to stop the scams and lies? People are too convinced by the media repeatedly telling us how Liberal it is, and then it supports Robber Barons and only gives us bad news about Unions. We swallow the threat of Iran, after we swallowed the threat of Iraq and the threat of Afghanistan.

We've got the Nuclear inspectors in Iran, and they give it a clean bill of health, and all experts know that 20% enriched is NOT weapons-grade. And Meanwhile, we are supposed to believe that, they are so crazy that they are taunting us with building a nuke, while we are all but flying sorties over their country?

How many times do we need this scam before we get the "we pretend to be enemies, and we use the threats to consolidate the power of a strong man" trick and start understanding that this is all about control and getting Democracy out of the way? Obama argues about $20 Billion in cuts while we spent $1.5 trillion on two wars and the Fed prints up over $14 trillion for the banks and we can't investigate a damn thing, while Cheney comes out of his crypt from time to time to taunt the government that could put him in front of a firing squad for treason with a one week investigation of just ONE of his many, many crimes.

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by seethelight

 

Playing devil's advocate, if you were to go by this piece alone, and all you had heard was the initial story, you'd probably think that the pancaking floors forced the air to suddenly compress, blowing out some of the windows. There's a plume of dust that comes out immediately after the windows blow.

I don't know..
There is one problem with that I can think of, the plumes of smoke can be seen before the building collapses enough to actually press the air out of the building.
The smoke can be seen simultaneously on several different floors. Now, I don't think that's how it would play out in real life, several different floors all having the air squeezed out of them at exactly the same time, at the same time that the building is really just starting to collapse.

That's how I see it anyway.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Whyhi
Demolition crews?

Controlled demolition Inc. was on scene. Also there is a video of a Manhattan Demolition truck around the towers at the time of the collapse.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure firemen don't have any training or equipment in explosives or demolition. Cutting beams? With what? The jaws of life?

Yes some firemen do have training with explosives. Fire rescue crews have cutting torches and sawsalls.

I suggest you do some research before posting about something you seem to know nothing about.
[edit on 15-2-2010 by REMISNE]

>> I tried to follow this little back and forth discussion on "pulling the building" but I'm getting tired and all I can say is; "what does it matter?"

This is a great example on how the little stuff gets debated to confuse the big stuff LINK:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

It's really cute -- they've got a picture of a cable "pulling" a building down. I've tried that with a tree -- you can't REALLY pull something down like a tree that way -- you have to cut it. You might redirect some debris or hold a structure that is leaning that way. I'm sure there are other terms in the English Language that have more than one meaning that we can use cute word games with. Here's a question; Who is going to attach a cable and "yank" the building over during a fire? Either the whole dang structure is engulfed in flames -- and the point of explosives and cable is kind of moot -- or it's not burning terribly and thus, it wouldn't be collapsing.

So either way -- the situation, defeats any THEORY about pulling the dang building. Either they meant the term "blow up the building" -- or the conversation never happened. Can we just use logic? A building that COULD collapse by fire could not have cables or explosives and a building that won't collapse, doesn't need them. Building owners don't "Pull" out fire fighters.

It doesn't matter if firefighters had or did not have cutting torches and saw-alls or Leprechaun gold in their pockets. They are never going to be trying to set charges to demolish a burning building nor be able to while a fire is going on.

I am NOT a fire-fighter expert - but having an explosive to do anything MORE than clear a hallway of debris makes absolutely no sense -- so let's all at least agree that a building demolition takes time and is done when it is NOT on fire.

It doesn't matter if Sliverstein asked them to "pull the building" -- ONE, just because it seems to my common sense that nobody on a fire team would be calling some building owner for their opinion about the safety of their own fracking fire fighters in the first place. Either the police chief is working for the stinking robber baron, or it's a total sham and red herring to begin with. It MIGHT make sense for a Fire Chief to call a building owner about what they might do with their building -- but not about the safety of his men -- even if Silverstein is such a humanitarian.

And he is as lucky as any Bush, getting rights to manage the building for around $127 million, doubling the insurance only 2 months before it fell, and collecting $7 Billion on a building that was full of Asbestos that required removal by law -- I'm sure the Ports Authority was happy to stick him with such a White Elephant -- who knew you could make money on a building that way? He went from something that might COST him $2 Billion to a profit of 7. Though I'm also not an expert on Asbestos removal -- but you count the number of floors the size of a football field and read up about the cost of removal in a house.

This is a total distraction and it doesn't matter. Nothing is going to happen about 9.11 until someone starts applying their own justice, because the guys who engineered the "fire sale" on Wall Street that required Trillions to go to the banks are in charge of putting out those fires.

The lobbyists are in charge of oversight of the industries they work for -- at least while Bush was running things.

The death-dealing merchants are in charge of the wars.

The people who investigated the WTC wreckage ("Controlled Demolitions, Inc."), is likely the same people who set the charges. Maybe they already spend two weeks dressed as a security guard at night putting in the charges -- I don't know. Let's have a trial, and water board some people for national security. If we can do it to an innocent cab driver -- what makes the life of someone like Dick Cheney MORE important than anyone elses? Who got it into our heads that one person is treated as a king, and another can be killed by torture JUST IN CASE without a trial because he lives in the wrong country? Oh yeah -- NATIONAL SECURITY justifies it. Well, the Prez and VP are no longer our go-to guys on the War Effort, so on the off chance that when they lost 6 nukes and recovered 5 at a certain air base, and oh yeah, they could have wrecked our economy and attacked our country on purpose -- that sounds like a National Security Issue to me... you know, just in case, right?

There is this constant debate over silly things that cannot be proven, while the huge glaring fact of the matter is; NO NORMAL fire can bring down a steel building, and I've seen all the repeated nonsense until I'm sick -- just LOOK AT THIS BURNING BUILDING -- you can barely see the frame of it from all the fire, and it burned for OVER 8 HOURS. You have to come up with some super secret CIA nano-super-fuel to explain how whatever fire at WTC 7 could have brought it down so quickly.

NOW we've got this theory about debris falling from the top of WTC 1 and falling OVER building 6 to hit Building 7 -- whatever can plausibly be debated, right? The only EVIDENCE for this, is that WTC 7 collapsed, so therefore it MUST have been hit by whatever amount would make this plausible. It's like Global Warming; Exxon was caught paying think tanks and astro turf shills to attack the scientific theories, and then the PROOF that we can't do anything for the environment -- you know, just in CASE we don't destroy the ecosystem, is that all the scientific experts who understand the problem -- including interns in college, are all in this vast conspiracy to lie to the world in order to get a fat $10,000 grant at BEST in most cases from some government. Trillions of Dollars on one hand, and Al Gore making a buck on the other.

"Pulling the building" is the same Red Herring as Al Gore. Whether or not he makes money on carbon offsets, has nothing to do with all the science that has yet to be debunked. Not to get us off track on another topic. But "Global Warming" is a Conspiracy, because it COULD make someone a buck, but the INSIDE JOB, is NOT a conspiracy, you sill loon, even though it's made un-convicted crooks like Haliburton, Billions of ACTUAL DOLLARS, while they electrocute soldiers with shoddy construction and save money giving them polluted water.

We've got an amazing theory to explain WTC 1 and 2, but nothing rational to explain WTC 7.

And can we even answer the question; "Why the HELL is anyone asking Silverstein about pulling the building whether it's for the fire-fighters or not in the first place?"

If a Fireman were tasked with setting charges to blow the building, we would have heard about it, right?

>> The VERY LAST POINT, that annoys me so much and should be obvious, is if events happened the way our Pet Goat reading President says they went, then why did almost every detail and fact that we are now debating require lawsuits and the "Freedom of Information Act" to get the truth?

There is great skill on both sides at looking at weaknesses in the other's arguments -- but we are NOW debating information that was all THEORY on the side of the Truther's a few years ago, and THEN, we were debating conspiracy theories proposed a year after the event.

The 9/11 widows SUED the administration -- NOT the Truthers who "disparaged their memory." Only a year before that, firefighters were paraded in front of us, and we couldn't talk about a conspiracy, because it was so cruel to the survivors; "How dare you add to their pain." And we forget all this, the minute that Anne Coulter calls them; "Sympathy-mongers" or something -- I'm sure I'll remember that focus-group tested phrase tomorrow.
HERE ARE THE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS

More than half the first responders are dead now, due to lung problems from the "safe air" at the scene -- REMEMBER that asbestos I was talking about that was going to cost money to remove? Oh, how quickly we forget the HEROES as soon as they want to go on the "accident victim" bandwagon.

All the "Lefty European Nations" that said Iraq was not a threat, were not to be trusted because of their Liberal leanings. Everybody that had anything that didn't support the Bush reality 100% was not credible, and all the honest people were telling us the Government truth. Until of course, they started speaking out, and every one of them somehow found being a pariah and becoming unemployed, was a great life goal because they just really enjoyed saying nasty things about poor old Bush.

Anyway,Trusters keep moving the Goal Posts. I'm sure in another few years, we will have to have video and Dick Cheney's fingerprints on the thermite container because we will be debating "anyone could have put that thermite there...

reply to post by seethelight


I see no one has been able to take this challenge.

Cause you faithers can't hack it...

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


This is a crazy rant.

There's so many leaps and logic, so many inconsistencies, so much accepted as fact that isn't proven, so much paranoia.... it's just sad.

This is like a religious person babbling on about Jesus.

Like I keep saying, trying to prove answers is next to impossible when all you have is each others rantlets and youtube ravings... why not just focus on the questions...

then focus on finding someone you can all trust to answer them... #

then focus on getting that person the role of answering the questions (Access to evidence, witnesses, etc.)

then just shut up and believe whatever he says...

Oh riiiiight... because your going on faith now, and there's abotu 1000 strains of Faithers.... so no matter what happens huge numbers WILL ALWAYS claim a conspiracy.


There is NO solution to this issue. And VERY little point in all these threads.

Nothing will please the majority of you.

reply to post by Sibilance


Go look at other controlled explosions and this will NO LONGER look like one.

Seems like everyone thinks that a building falling down looks like a crontrolled explosion, but if you actually watch ACTUAL demolitions you'll see that aside from the collapsing building very little is the same.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
and the Pentagon doesn't have cameras or the AA that we KNOW they have

This is yet more truther garbage - just what AA at the Pentagon are you talking about? Care to show some proof - any at all - that the Pentagon had any AA on 9/11

It doesn't bother FIRST that they don't have any decent video of the event -- and the 5 frames from a pin-hole camera took 5 years to squeeze out of them?

It doesn't bother you about the whole LAUNDRY LIST I brought up -- you just want to attack the smallest, hardest to prove assumption that doesn't really matter?

I kind of figured when I read my comment after posting, that THIS was the one part of what I said that would get comment -- I rarely ever get a reply on my comments because I think I do a good job. I ONLY see comments from the "Bush is honest conspiracy theorists" on the weakest points, while ANY AND ALL POSSIBLE theories you guys come up with, gets a "Truther" pointing out each and every flaw. And you know, we've got to have an AIR TIGHT conspiracy theory after all the evidence was destroyed by the very people who conducted the investigations to have a reasonable doubt to investigate these SOBs.

>> But I won't wimp out. I don't KNOW for a fact the Pentagon has people on the roof with Stinger missiles -- I guess mostly because they would not be telling everyone about their security measures. They just tell you that they are the people to handle "these sorts of things" right after they fail spectacularly -- then folks like me have to debate folks like you on why we write a blank check to invade the wrong country.

I just assume, that some dumb-ass like me, who wanted to secure the BIGGEST TARGET ON THE PLANET, against the most likely threats it might come up against. I'm sure they might even have metal detectors and ID badge checks at the entrances.

>> If the people at the Pentagon DID NOT, have AA equipment on the roof, then I'm perfectly happy that we try and convict Donald Rumsfeld and a lot of other top brass for Criminal Negligence. Would that make you guys happy -- since we talk about "personal accountability" all the time.

I think these people, if they had ANY honor, would have taken their own lives, just to spare themselves the embarrassment.

>> I looked for and FOUND links and such, that talked about AA Batteries on the roof of the Pentagon -- they are of course, probably NOT scholarly articles that we should accept. Here is an article, debunking MY THEORY; LINK

Here is another article, that explains how the Pentagon, has no A-A -- UNLIKE THE WHITE HOUSE; LINK

>> Now that they are so forthcoming with the AA on the White House -- which DID NOT take a Freedom of Information act lawsuit, we at least have DOCUMENTATION of that. Since it's the CIA, Rumsfeld's Pentagon Buddies, and the White House, who were falling all over themselves to cover everything up after 911, and had the most to gain, I'm absolutely sure since they are the AUTHORITIES on all the evidence -- that if the White House were hit, we'd have no scholarly articles on its defenses to reference either.

With military defenses -- you only find out the SCHOLARLY LIE, AFTER the war is over.

This is great fun to debate a crime where all the investigations and evidence are offered up by the perpetrators -- and not even their own SHAM investigation committee, is ready to say they have credibility.

Hey, look, here is an article where Rumsfeld ORDERS the addition of AA Missiles; LINK
How come this SOB got a job in defense when an arm-chair general like me is so much smarter? I'm sure hindsight is 20/20, but this isn't even my JOB, and me and other stupid Liberals have been saying; "Reinforce and lock the pilot's doors on airplanes" for years.

But incompetence is so easy to believe in Government. I understand. But when Bush's FEMA buddies couldn't find New Orleans for 3 months with their ice trucks, his other buddies were closing down 144 Public Schools. Blackwater quickly secured the houses for Rich Folks, and Haliburton leaped into to quickly hire migrant Mexican workers who they charged $75 an hour for and made damn sure no locals got good jobs -- but they forgot to pay these imported workers in many cases.

The DEBATE raged over whether the Levies were blown -- which would require and investigation and nobody could prove it. We KNOW that some Mortuary company from Texas that Bush had campaign financing scandal history with, brought in over 5,000 body disposal bags, and that over 5,000 people "went missing" in New Orleans -- yet nobody could investigate.

For 4 days, Emergency Rescue workers were held up in Georgia, attending a spur of the moment training class on "sexual harassment."

Should we have had a firing squad over NOT having an emergency plan? Should we have had a firing squad over Criminal Negligence? How about the propaganda where Rush Limbaugh debated Nagin or local incompetence and having evacuations that were required as soon as Bush SIGNED the Federal Emergency orders? It is now known, that the former head of FEMA, who got the lucrative job of handling evacuations, outsourced his own demanding job to another company, and THEY merely planned on renting the buses at the last moment -- but they were already covered in water.

I don't think either of us can PROVE one way or the other about what the Pentagon has or doesn't have on it's roof. The people who know, can't say, and the people talking, were working for the people we are accusing. There is NO definitive military truth, OK? The Pentagon also tells us that they only have one camera that was covering their lawn at the time -- while we KNOW about a half dozen eyewitnesses who say their security cam footage was confiscated -- why don't they just open it up to an investigation?

And then of course, you will reply; "It has been investigated, the matter is settled!" And of course, then we'd debate whether the committee investigating it is credible when they say it was all a WHITEWASH

So Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and the PNAC conspiracy I think are the single biggest threat to this nation versus a Saudi Prince who used to work for the CIA and who's family was flown out of the country without being questioned on 9/12 -- the all deserve a fair trial. They are already guilty of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE -- but nobody in our administration is willing to prosecute.

And meanwhile, the Supreme Court makes nice new Constitutional Laws by ruling that Corporations are people and that their campaign bribes are speech.

And meanwhile, we've got the Fox News shills who did the hit job on ACORN, breaking into and bugging the office of the lady chairing the committee that is investigating the underwear bomber, after the CIA stopped the State Department from pulling his passport. Amazing how there was so much disinformation on such a surprise attack around Christmas, and we have all these Bush loyalists failing to connect the dots, yet interfering with the investigation.

I've got all sorts of links connecting this Fox News jerk to the CIA. Yet another False Flag where they let the country get attacked for a political agenda. We can debate that one too -- but on the record; Chertoff gets money from the company that he pitched for the $1.5 Billion deal to sell us the full body scanners. So should he be charged with criminal negligence, terrorist complicity, or war profiteering?

No investigations and there will be no investigations until we can prove it without having an investigation. As soon as these criminals document their crimes and hand us the evidence, I can prove it!

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Sean48

 

Ah so now there were no explosives with WTC7? Moving the goalposts are we?
So now what was it? Magic pixy dust that silently explodes?

No..it was NANO THERMITE, very similar to MAGIC PIXY DUST, as it explodes/melts with very little sound.

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

This is a crazy rant.

There's so many leaps and logic, so many inconsistencies, so much accepted as fact that isn't proven, so much paranoia.... it's just sad.

This is like a religious person babbling on about Jesus.

Like I keep saying, trying to prove answers is next to impossible when all you have is each others rantlets and youtube ravings... why not just focus on the questions...
....

OK. You tell me EXACTLY which point I made is unsubstantiated and I'll get you the link. The problem is, I've been over this stuff for years, and I've had to commit so many things to memory -- and it takes a few HOURS of wasted time to make the PERFECT point, that SOMETHING DOESN'T ADD UP -- that I cannot link to EVERY POINT.

Make sure you find the most obscure and hard to prove one, and debate that.

I'm not all over the place -- I'm pointing out things that you don't see are connected, because you don't have the sort of mind that makes these connections. I'm not looking up at a cloud and seeing sheep, and elephants and wondering why clouds would choose to make those shapes -- people are great at pattern recognition.

Of the MANY points I made, I said, the MAIN one I think was about debating what Silverstein meant by PULL is ridiculous, because all the other reasons to PULL make no sense -- it's called deductive reasoning. Can you PROVE what they said? No. Neither can I.

Can anyone PROVE what was done on 9/11 -- not without an investigation. There iS NO PROOF. I'm sure if the Mob ever decides to rob Fort Knox -- they won't be incriminating themselves. If the Government did it -- it would neither be investigated nor reported, and some nut would show up to say "Aliens did it" and that would become the representative for the CONSPIRACY SIDE.

>> So point out any flaw in my 'rantings' and I'll walk you through it -- if I have the time.