The Truth Behind 9/11

[Slim]

Nowhere. He says over and over, he doesn't know. He's not speaking as an informed person, he says he doesn't know anything about it, it's not in his jurisdiction, he knows there's been discussions but he's not party to them. Despite that he says something flippant like 'I think it was pulled' and the tin hat nutters jump on this as some kind of revalation. Get a grip?

[stevie]

he says something flippant like 'I think it was pulled' and the tin hat nutters jump on this as some kind of revalation. Get a grip?

 

no slim, he actually says, "I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things, that they did it in a controlled fashion."

 

'they made the decision'.

 

not, 'i think it was pulled'.

 

i think you need to get a grip and start listening to things actually said, instead of trying to dismiss everything that is said in opposition to the 'official story'.

[Slim]

See how you selectively trimmed my post in the same way you selectively hear what's been presented?

 

He says right up front, "that's a new one one me" when controlled deomilishion was mentioned. He also says "that wall", not "that building". You nutters aren't talking about a wall, you're talking about the whole thing. If it was just a single wall it woudln't fit your 'evidence'. You're being very selective to make some guy who's thinking on his feet and knows nothing about the situation fit your story. It's rot.

[stevie]

See how you selectively trimmed my post in the same way you selectively hear what's been presented?

 

He says right up front, "that's a new one one me" when controlled deomilishion was mentioned. He also says "that wall", not "that building". You nutters aren't talking about a wall, you're talking about the whole thing. If it was just a single wall it woudln't fit your 'evidence'. You're being very selective to make some guy who's thinking on his feet and knows nothing about the situation fit your story. It's rot.

 

"that's a new one one me"

 

what the fuck are you on about slim? you're getting as bad as tameelf lol.

 

yes i know he talks about "that wall". as in "that wall" was in danger, and so "they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things, that they did it in a controlled fashion."

 

they did it in a controlled fashion. in other words, they pulled the building? they done a controlled demolition on building 7.

 

slim if it was just a single wall, as you say, it would never have collapsed into it's own footprints.

 

didn't the Marriot Hotel also have 1 wall that started to collapse? did that too fall into it's own footprints?

 

err, no.

[Slim]

Your joining dots, your filling in gaps and making it into something he didn't say. You're a dimwit, or a nutter if you think that's any kind of testimony to your idiot theories.

[tameelf]

Your joining dots, your filling in gaps and making it into something he didn't say. You're a dimwit, or a nutter if you think that's any kind of testimony to your idiot theories.

slim explain what kerry dident say?

please remind me what dident silverstein say. was it not "pulled"

[Dr_Dave]

slim explain what kerry dident say?

please remind me what dident silverstein say. was it not "pulled"

 

Let's look at the Silverstein thing first. He did indeed say: "And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

 

Now, according to your theory, Silverstein (not in the demolition business) used a very specific demolition term ("to pull") and this means that WTC7 was brought down in a manner described by the demolition term "to pull".

 

In demolition circles, "to pull" means literally that. To attach cables to the building and pull it away from another building to collapse in a controlled manner. Are you saying that cables were attached to WTC7 and it was pulled down? Because, if you aren't, then Silverstein didn't use demolition terminology (hardly surprising, since he isn't in the demolition business) and in fact could have meant anything. You can't have it both ways, either he was using demolition terminology, or he wasn't.

 

So, now we've learned something about what we're actually talking about, what exactly are you saying? Did they "pull" WTC7 or did they "pull out" of WTC7? Think carefully now.

 

As for Kerry... Quite apart from the fact that he says nothing about using a controlled explosion to bring down WTC7 (he refers to a "wall" and says "they did it in a controlled fashion", which is so vague it more than likely refers to pulling out and letting it fall down) it is very clear from this clip that he doesn't know anything at all, and probably isn't even aware of which building they're talking about.

 

But seriously, are you really suggesting that Kerry, presidential candidate in 2004 who was defeated by Bush (who may or may not be the mastermind of your conspiracy), was in on this all along? And that he never thought to mention this in the presidential campaign? Or that he folded under the intense scrutiny of a book signing audience??

 

Add this to the owner of the building that was secretly destroyed who accidentally gave away the masterplan on national radio. Or the conspiracy's media relations department who accidentally gave away the entire plot to several worldwide TV news stations an hour before it actually happened.

 

I would dearly love to get hold of a bag of whatever it is you smoke.

 

Dave

[Slim]

slim explain what kerry dident say?

 

 

I don't know why I'm explaining anything to someone who's too thick to spell "didn't", but anyway: He didn't say "The government rigged the building with explosives and blew it up, but kept it secret". Is that clear now?

[stevie]

So, now we've learned something about what we're actually talking about, what exactly are you saying? Did they "pull" WTC7 or did they "pull out" of WTC7? Think carefully now.

 

it's impossible that the term to "pull" was meant as to 'pull out'.

 

as you quoted dave, "And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

 

the firefighters were long out of the building before it collapsed, so to "pull" could not have meant to 'pull out' the firefighters.

 

we are told that all the classified documents that were kept in building 7 (in the offices of the FBI, CIA, NSA etc.) were all destroyed due to the "fire", so again, to "pull" the building, did not mean to get all the documents out.

 

so dave, if you think silverstein actually meant 'pull out', in what relation did he say it to? what did he want out? who did he want out?

 

oh and btw, silversein never gave the game away on radio as you say...

 

Add this to the owner of the building that was secretly destroyed who accidentally gave away the masterplan on national radio

 

it was on a television interview, not a radio.

 

and slipping up by mentioning it was pulled is hardly giving away the masterplan now is it dave?

 

As for Kerry... Quite apart from the fact that he says nothing about using a controlled explosion to bring down WTC7 (he refers to a "wall" and says "they did it in a controlled fashion", which is so vague it more than likely refers to pulling out and letting it fall down)

 

letting the building fall down? are you serious here? a building does not just fall down. as i've said before, if building 7 collapsed due to the side of the building falling, why didn't the Marriot Hotel next door also collapse into its own footprints? because it too had one side of the building collapse. more to the point, if the side of the building (the wall) fell, that must mean the load bearing member had collapsed in only ONE corner.

 

here are a few pictures of buildings that this has happened to before.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

notice they all fall to one side?

 

now this is a video of a controlled demolition, where they blow all 4 load bearing members all at once

 

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/image...nt/kingdome.mpg

 

remind you of anything?

[Dr_Dave]

it's impossible that the term to "pull" was meant as to 'pull out'.

 

Fascinating. Your proof of this?

 

as you quoted dave, "And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

 

Maybe he was talking about going out and picking up some chicks? You know, all those fire-fighters... that's got to be a winning formula eh?

 

we are told that all the classified documents that were kept in building 7 (in the offices of the FBI, CIA, NSA etc.) were all destroyed due to the "fire", so again, to "pull" the building, did not mean to get all the documents out.

 

Heh. You amuse me. Why put "fire" in quotes? Do you doubt that the building was on fire? Or do you just doubt the existence of fire? It's a tricky concept to grasp, but if you think of it as a kind of angry demon then you might get close to appreciating what it is.

 

so dave, if you think silverstein actually meant 'pull out', in what relation did he say it to? what did he want out? who did he want out?

 

I think he waited long enough to get Elvis out safely, then pelted the walls with fake moon rocks till the building imploded.

 

and slipping up by mentioning it was pulled is hardly giving away the masterplan now is it dave?

 

Heh. You're great, you should have a TV show or something. Surely you can see that going on TV and talking, in apparently very obvious terms, about how you purposefully destroyed your own building while the official explanation was that it fell down of its own accord might have detrimental effects on your grand scheme. Whatever that is.

 

letting the building fall down? are you serious here? a building does not just fall down.

 

Yes, because NOTHING else had happened to that building that day. Don't know what I was thinking.

 

here are a few pictures of buildings that this has happened to before.

 

No, there's a few pictures of buildings that collapsed in a Taiwanese earthquake. Why not go away and find pictures of a building that collapsed after having countless tonnes of a 100+ storey building fall on them before buring for five hours straight, then we can compare like for like.

 

Here's an image captured by a CCTV camera across the road from WTC 7 shortly before the collapse:

 

http://www.vazcomics.org/mamend/endless/rampage.png

 

Dave

[tameelf]

But seriously, are you really suggesting that Kerry, presidential candidate in 2004 who was defeated by Bush (who may or may not be the mastermind of your conspiracy), was in on this all along?

 

yes dave kerry flung the towel in before the result was in its well documented just google it.while your on google try skull and bones.then try bush crime family.these people funded hitler into power. .and have had a major role in american politics for many years.this major role will not end when bush leaves office.or the planet .the agenda will continue

 

Cal-Tech Physicist weighs in on the collapse of the World Trade Center

 

http://innworldreport.net/video_launcher.php?2007-04-23i

 

The Evidence is in

Professor Steven Jones presenting his X-ray spectrometry evidence from samples taken at the WTC site. They dramatically show a PERFECT MATCH for the highly specialized compound "thermate" (used for cutting through steel) found in the WTC debris. (And no, thermate was NOT used during the clean up operation...this stuff was in the building, and ignited, prior to collapse.)

 

http://stopthelie.com/the_evidence_is_in.html

[Slim]

How many times do we have to say it? Google isn't fucking proof of anything. I can go on youtube saying I'm the new messia if I like, it doesn't make it fucking true.

 

Why do you accept these flimsy assumptions as evidence over the massive weight of real evidence that contradicts them?

 

Wake up.

[Dr_Dave]

Why do you accept these flimsy assumptions as evidence over the massive weight of real evidence that contradicts them?

 

Slim, you're a sheep. Why are you so willing to believe the weight of thousands and thousands of hours of media coverage, expert testimony by real engineers and fire-fighters, forensic evidence, eye witness statements and the constraints of the laws of physics?

 

Listen, it's very simple, I'm going to break it down for you so that you can understand it and hopefully the veil of conformity will be lifted from your eyes:

 

In 1996, a hardcore group of neo-conservatives concocted a super secret masterplan to invade Iraq and secure oil reserves. They took this super secret masterplan and published it publicly on the internet under the misleading title "Project for a New American Century". Then in 2001, they masterminded the fake hijack of four aeroplanes - two of these, they replaced with cargo jets and offloaded the passengers somewhere in the desert. They faked phonecalls to the families of these passengers fully aware of the fact that mobile phonecalls from moving planes DO NOT work. They also called emergency services. The planes had the passports of STILL LIVING muslim extremists placed in them because no-one would ever think to check if anyone had actually died. The fate of the passengers is unknown, it is likely that they never existed in the first place and the hundreds of relatives and emergency services people are actors in the conspiracy.

 

These cargo planes were flown into the WTC, which had been rigged with explosives prior to the event. Also, every Jewish member of staff had been phoned and told to stay at home because something bad was going to happen. The explosives were triggered before/during/after the planes hit the towers and the towers eventually collapsed in a way that was IMPOSSIBLE for a building to do that has just been hit by planes full of fuels - pictures from earthquakes show this.

 

Meanwhile, the third plane was en route to the Pentagon. Actually, it wasn't, it too had been to the desert, landed and been replaced by a fighter jet encased in a fibre glass shell that made it look like a cruise missile. This fighter jet was remote controlled into the pentagon. The original plane was broken up into small pieces, transported to Washington and placed on the lawn along with the charred corpses of the passengers, who were presumably killed and burned in the desert. This was for photographs. Shortly after the plane/missile hit the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld was quoted as admitting it was a missile not a plane ("..and the missile to damage this building..") thus, intentionally presumably, giving the game away.

 

Many hundreds of eye witnesses were faked in Washington and made to say that they actually saw, with their eyes, a plane hitting the building.

 

The final plane was shot down by a fighter jet. Though the debris was recovered and replaced by considerably less debris and spread over a far bigger area than you would expect - thus making it obvious that a plane hadn't crashed there. Mobile phone companies were involved in the conspiracy and made to say that passengers phoned about a heroic recovery attempt.

 

Meanwhile, WTC 7, which had previously been rigged with explosives by the owner (who had coincidentally taken out a massive insurance policy), was burning. The intention was to destroy it demolition style to destroy documents - it was not thought enough that the building was severely damaged and had been burning for five hours and was pretty much irrecoverable. So the conspirators called up the BBC and CNN and told them that they had blown it up, here's the clever part, one hour before they actually did it. The BBC and CNN are also in on the conspiracy see and did their part by broadcasting the fact to the world with the still intact building in the background? When it was finally intentionally destroyed in full view of the world's media, the owner went on TV and told the world that it had been intentionally destroyed. However the official line was that it fell of it's own accord, which is IMPOSSIBLE. Earthquake aftermath picture prove this.

 

So with the PNAC's grand plan to concoct a reason to invade Iraq enacted, the US conspirators then ... invaded Afghanistan. The plan was completed years later when Iraq was invaded on an entirely different pretence. The true magnitude of the plan was only realised when Senator John Kerry (conspirator) caved under the intense scrutiny of a book signing audience.

 

Jeez Slim, wake up and stop being a "sheeple".

 

Dave

[Chinahand]

Dr Dave pure brilliance - though you forgot the Nazi's and the organized crime connections.

 

yes dave kerry flung the towel in before the result was in its well documented just google it.while your on google try skull and bones.then try bush crime family.these people funded hitler into power. .and have had a major role in american politics for many years.this major role will not end when bush leaves office.or the planet .the agenda will continue

 

The Evidence is in

Professor Steven Jones presenting his X-ray spectrometry evidence from samples taken at the WTC site. They dramatically show a PERFECT MATCH for the highly specialized compound "thermate" (used for cutting through steel) found in the WTC debris. (And no, thermate was NOT used during the clean up operation...this stuff was in the building, and ignited, prior to collapse.)

 

http://stopthelie.com/the_evidence_is_in.html

 

Tameelf - the more I listen to your drivel the more I am amazed about your world view. You see sinister forces controlling everything, Nazi's, organized crime, these evil manipulators who control thousands upon thousands of drones who go around in their black helicopters murdering, bombing and killing.

 

They control the media, pay informers to go on Manxforums to spread disinformation, and have every major politician from every major political party in their pocket.

 

Please read Dr Dave's post - read it and think about it - I've been asking you for an age to really explain the picture all your randoms dots are adding to make. What Dr Dave has posted sums up the picture pretty well to me - and obviously as Dr Dave thinks your a TIT it is the picture someone with the mental age of a 12 year old would conjour up by reading the wild imaginings of lots of other inspirational 12 year olds on the internet.

 

If you have any sophistication in your world view then please try to articulate them yourself, if Dr Dave is accurately summarizing your world view then I feel sorry for you but there we go, but if he's setting you up as a straw man and their are some more reasoned thoughts in your mind then I really would try and explain how Dr Dave is distorting what you are saying. At the moment your posts are valueless, you extrapolate single words in single sentences to force them to fit in with your world view, you have no understanding of the rivalries of politics or the antagonistic relationships of business - for you its all a big Fraternity controlling the world.

 

I think it is interesting that you and stevie have been left to your ravings while some other posters who were more inclined to believe there are things wrong with the explanations to Bush's Wars have fallen quiet. Some of these could articulate ideas about US foreign and defence policy and how it was used to set the political debate in the US that were interesting if far from the mainstream. But now they have given up and been replaced by your nuttiness.

 

I am happy to talk about Republican/neo con manipulation of American popular opinion. There is a fascinating set of debates about whether American defence and Foreign policy had failed to adapt to a changing political situation over the Clinton era and what the role was of Neo Con Think Tanks in creating a very hard line administration that used ideology over reality to push through its policy objectives. The US is now reaping the whirlwind these ideologues have created and more realist and moderate politicians are trying to pick up the pieces.

 

These are important debates, but if you are going to post links that say proof positive thermalite has been found in WTC7 and I can spend 20 seconds and find this link then I don't think it is worthwhile replying anymore.

 

he lists the "ingreidents" that we all know of, but "forgets" to include Barium Nitrate. funny, you want to prove that thermate was involved, but dont test for something that makes up 30% of it?

 

Jones has proven beyond doubt that the WTC contained iron, aluminum, and sulphur. I am shocked!

 

think the fact that he lists ingredients speak for itself he shouldnt be looking for ingredients, but the [by] products, unless his goal is to show thermate was in the towers, but wasnt ignited because they collapsed on their own

 

 

I did some quick work with NIST's DTSA and simulated the spectra for iron and fluorine. If Jones is producing an X-ray image of fluorine in a substance that has a substantial iron signature (like, oh, structural steel), then fully 80% of the counts associated with fluorine will actually be iron. If Jones intends to prove the presence of fluorine, he first has to account for the peak overlap with iron.

 

This thread has always been more a joke than a worthwhile forum of debate, but your contributions have totally ended what little value it had. It is only when the stupidity of the posts goes beyond my patience I bother to reply, but I really have had enough when you use single sentences from a senior politician talking off the cuff to justify your ravings. Grow up you bothersome child say something worthwhile or lets just close this thread and do something more worthwhile.

[stevie]

I think it is interesting that you and stevie have been left to your ravings while some other posters who were more inclined to believe there are things wrong with the explanations to Bush's Wars have fallen quiet. Some of these could articulate ideas about US foreign and defence policy and how it was used to set the political debate in the US that were interesting if far from the mainstream. But now they have given up and been replaced by your nuttiness.

 

china, as i've said before, please don't bring me into arguements with tameelf. i have very different opinions about the world than tameelf, yet we both seem to get to the same conclusion to 9/11. that is the only comparison.

 

to call my posts ravings is not very accurate. my last question to you was to name the 19 hijackers and you still haven't, or is this one of the so called 'stupid' posts you won't reply to. i personally don't think it's a stupid question. in fact it should be an easy question for you. surely there can't be any discrepancies about who actually hijacked the plane? as dave said, the passports were found of the hijackers shortly after the crash.