If you don't believe the 9/11 truth by now...your a fool

[Cyber Gandalf 0]

The BBC story clinches it...they reported building 7 falling before it did! Who told them? Who? WHO!!?!?

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...wjournalism.htm

 

To all the non-believers...there's no hope for you.

[ZeroTolerance 584]

Man, someone is trying too hard.

[Cyber Gandalf 0]

Man, someone is trying too hard.

Some of the firefighters said it sounded like explosions...are you calling them liars?

[SUXBNME 1,639]

Some of the firefighters said it sounded like explosions...are you calling them liars?

Yep...They lie

 

 

Next?

[Giants Fan 85]

I'm sure it sounded like explosions. I was right across the river from the WTC when the second plane hit .... and you know what I heard? NO IMPACT sound, I heard people around me screaming. That's what I heard. Didn't mean that airplane didn't hit that building. I was really not 100% sure until I exited the subway at 6th Ave and 14th street that both towers had been hit, because from that vantage point you could look directly South to the towers. I've been there ... I've been to the top of those towers, and they aren't there anymore.

 

I actually knew 2 people that were on American Airlines #11.

 

I can assure you of all that ... as well as some other things you may not have considered.

 

1) Those buildings were massive. It's amazing that less damage didn't happen to the surrounding buildings, but the weight of the roof caused a pulverizing effect. Turned what was below it to dust.

 

2) The market doesn't open until 9:30. Those towers would not be full until at least 10 AM. It all went down an hour too early.

 

But it all happened, I think pretty much like you've been told. A bunch of Saudi born terrorists pulled off the biggest terrorist attack in the history of the world.

 

I remember how I felt that morning, and I have no problem believeing that the people on United #93 did what you see in that film. You might be surprised about your willingness to die given the right situation.

[teejay booker 0]

I read the whole thing and the linked stories within the article. All seems pretty interesting to me... Do I believe it? No way in hell. This wasn't some TV show like 24. This actually did happen. The fact that you are trying to purport some conspiracy theory is not only ridiculous, but it is an injustice to the people that died that day. Shame on you Mr. Alias. I can't remember who your owner is though.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

BBC already had a mea culpa concerning this error. CG is an alias. No doubt Rude Rick, possibly Giants Fan or Rusty ......or both. This is my last reply to this ###### sucker.

[peenie 2,035]

i think the argument of the buildings falling on their own vs being brought down purposely are valid and does not take away from the fact that terrorists did crash planes into the twin towers.

 

it is my belief that yes, there were explosives in those buildings and that is why all of the world trade center buildings fell yet none of the other buildings in the area that were older did not fall.

 

i've said this from the beginning even before videos and conspiracy theories were running about that people inside the buildings claimed to hear explosions, that blasts were coming up the elevator shafts below even when the plane hit floors above them (the news tried to explain this phenomena away).

 

once again, i read that some contractor guy said that they do in fact put explosives inside these new skyscrapers. why not? i mean, do we really want buildings falling all over our cities? it's a way to control potential catastrophic damage.

[Voltaire 5,538]

I'm not familiar with the WTC complex, so help me see if I understand. I only know of the two buildings, but apparently there were more buildings in the WTC than the twin towers and all the WTC satelite buildings also fell down while other buildings in the area didn't fall down? Is that right?

[Snoopy1 0]

I'm not familiar with the WTC complex, so help me see if I understand. I only know of the two buildings, but apparently there were more buildings in the WTC than the twin towers and all the WTC satelite buildings also fell down while other buildings in the area didn't fall down? Is that right?

 

 

There was a third building, #7 that fell also.

 

Much debris fell on it, causing quite a bit of structural damage, it burned through-out the day. I remember may speculating that with all the damage it may collapse also. Was not a shock that it did.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

"it is my belief that yes, there were explosives in those buildings and that is why all of the world trade center buildings fell yet none of the other buildings in the area that were older did not fall."

 

1) The largest building ever brought down by controlled demolition was the J.L. Hudson Department Store (439 feet tall) it was 23 stories above ground. A mere fraction of the WTC towers 110 stories (1,368 feet tall x 2).

 

2) It took a crew of 12 men almost a month just to install charges in the Hudson building. Several months before installation of demo charges were needed to investigate and prepare the plan.

 

"Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design."

 

Miles of blasting wire, thousands of charges. tons of explosives. To wire BOTH of the WTC towers it would have taken many MONTHS of preparation. This would also require a near empty building.

 

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807

 

"CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition."

 

3) Not a single explosive device, or a single piece of blasting wire was recovered from any of the buildings that collapsed at ground zero. These things don't disappear, they are easily identifiable in the debris pile if they are present.

 

 

"once again, i read that some contractor guy said that they do in fact put explosives inside these new skyscrapers. why not? i mean, do we really want buildings falling all over our cities? it's a way to control potential catastrophic damage."

 

You read wrong. Buildings can only tip over so far before gravity initiates a collapse. This was evident when the top of the WTC tower listed to the side approximately 23 degrees before collapsing straight down. Building are in no way designed with explosives pre planted inside them. In no way would it "control potential catastrophic damage".

 

 

So in summary you chose to believe that the two largest controlled demolitions EVER conducted on buildings far taller than has ever been previously attempted. With no hint that they were rigged with charges and no evidence of explosive devices of any kind in the rubble?

 

Here is a video of the Hudson building coming down. Notice the distinct rhythmic explosions. Notice that the collapse starts at the bottom of the structure. (Hint: WTC towers collapse started at the plane impact areas, that is not how controlled demolition happens, that IS how structural failure happens though. )

 

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

 

Another video of a CD, this time it is The Landmark Tower (358 feet tall), again notice the series of charges that go off and again notice that the colapse initiated at the base of the building.

 

http://www.videospud.com/view_media.php?vs_id=176

 

 

Then you have the expert opinions. Not a single reputable demolition, architectural, civil or structural engineering firm in the world has made a claim that explosives were planted in any of the WTC buildings.

I honestly believe that is the single most telling piece of evidence there is, period.

[Cyber Gandalf 0]

There was a third building, #7 that fell also.

 

Much debris fell on it, causing quite a bit of structural damage, it burned through-out the day. I remember may speculating that with all the damage it may collapse also. Was not a shock that it did.

 

A firefighter said "Pull it"...does not that raise your eyebrow?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

"it is my belief that yes, there were explosives in those buildings and that is why all of the world trade center buildings fell yet none of the other buildings in the area that were older did not fall."

 

1) The largest building ever brought down by controlled demolition was the J.L. Hudson Department Store (439 feet tall) it was 23 stories above ground. A mere fraction of the WTC towers 110 stories (1,368 feet tall x 2).

 

2) It took a crew of 12 men almost a month just to install charges in the Hudson building. Several months before installation of demo charges were needed to investigate and prepare the plan.

 

"Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design."

 

Miles of blasting wire, thousands of charges. tons of explosives. To wire BOTH of the WTC towers it would have taken many MONTHS of preparation. This would also require a near empty building.

 

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807

 

"CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition."

 

3) Not a single explosive device, or a single piece of blasting wire was recovered from any of the buildings that collapsed at ground zero. These things don't disappear, they are easily identifiable in the debris pile if they are present.

"once again, i read that some contractor guy said that they do in fact put explosives inside these new skyscrapers. why not? i mean, do we really want buildings falling all over our cities? it's a way to control potential catastrophic damage."

 

You read wrong. Buildings can only tip over so far before gravity initiates a collapse. This was evident when the top of the WTC tower listed to the side approximately 23 degrees before collapsing straight down. Building are in no way designed with explosives pre planted inside them. In no way would it "control potential catastrophic damage".

So in summary you chose to believe that the two largest controlled demolitions EVER conducted on buildings far taller than has ever been previously attempted. With no hint that they were rigged with charges and no evidence of explosive devices of any kind in the rubble?

 

Here is a video of the Hudson building coming down. Notice the distinct rhythmic explosions. Notice that the collapse starts at the bottom of the structure. (Hint: WTC towers collapse started at the plane impact areas, that is not how controlled demolition happens, that IS how structural failure happens though. )

 

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

 

Another video of a CD, this time it is The Landmark Tower (358 feet tall), again notice the series of charges that go off and again notice that the colapse initiated at the base of the building.

 

http://www.videospud.com/view_media.php?vs_id=176

Then you have the expert opinions. Not a single reputable demolition, architectural, civil or structural engineering firm in the world has made a claim that explosives were planted in any of the WTC buildings.

I honestly believe that is the single most telling piece of evidence there is, period.

 

That's all nice and stuff..............but someone claims someone heard what may have been a firefighter say something like "Pull it" sometime that day.

 

I rest my case.

 

[OakHeadFootball 1]

A firefighter said "Pull it"...does not that raise your eyebrow?

 

 

When I get done "pulling it" both of my eyebrows are raised.

 

 

 

BTW: It wasn't a firefighter, it was Silverstien. Seeing as you can't get the simple facts straight you lead me to believe you are either.

 

A: an idiot

 

B: an idiot

 

I am thinking A myself.

[teejay booker 0]

"it is my belief that yes, there were explosives in those buildings and that is why all of the world trade center buildings fell yet none of the other buildings in the area that were older did not fall."

 

1) The largest building ever brought down by controlled demolition was the J.L. Hudson Department Store (439 feet tall) it was 23 stories above ground. A mere fraction of the WTC towers 110 stories (1,368 feet tall x 2).

 

2) It took a crew of 12 men almost a month just to install charges in the Hudson building. Several months before installation of demo charges were needed to investigate and prepare the plan.

 

"Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design."

 

Miles of blasting wire, thousands of charges. tons of explosives. To wire BOTH of the WTC towers it would have taken many MONTHS of preparation. This would also require a near empty building.

 

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807

 

"CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition."

 

3) Not a single explosive device, or a single piece of blasting wire was recovered from any of the buildings that collapsed at ground zero. These things don't disappear, they are easily identifiable in the debris pile if they are present.

"once again, i read that some contractor guy said that they do in fact put explosives inside these new skyscrapers. why not? i mean, do we really want buildings falling all over our cities? it's a way to control potential catastrophic damage."

 

You read wrong. Buildings can only tip over so far before gravity initiates a collapse. This was evident when the top of the WTC tower listed to the side approximately 23 degrees before collapsing straight down. Building are in no way designed with explosives pre planted inside them. In no way would it "control potential catastrophic damage".

So in summary you chose to believe that the two largest controlled demolitions EVER conducted on buildings far taller than has ever been previously attempted. With no hint that they were rigged with charges and no evidence of explosive devices of any kind in the rubble?

 

Here is a video of the Hudson building coming down. Notice the distinct rhythmic explosions. Notice that the collapse starts at the bottom of the structure. (Hint: WTC towers collapse started at the plane impact areas, that is not how controlled demolition happens, that IS how structural failure happens though. )

 

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

 

Another video of a CD, this time it is The Landmark Tower (358 feet tall), again notice the series of charges that go off and again notice that the colapse initiated at the base of the building.

 

http://www.videospud.com/view_media.php?vs_id=176

Then you have the expert opinions. Not a single reputable demolition, architectural, civil or structural engineering firm in the world has made a claim that explosives were planted in any of the WTC buildings.

I honestly believe that is the single most telling piece of evidence there is, period.

 

 

That's some good stuff. Very informative. And peenie, do you honestly believe that skyscrapers are built with explosives in them? Are you out of your mind? What if the explosives accidentally went off? What a ridiculous comment.

[SUXBNME 1,639]

That's some good stuff. Very informative. And peenie, do you honestly believe that skyscrapers are built with explosives in them? Are you out of your mind? What if the explosives accidentally went off? What a ridiculous comment.

That is what Jessy Jackson said

[IGotWorms 4,063]

The "controlled demolition" stuff out there is just misinformation. The idea is to make the conspiracy seem too grand to be believable. I mean, really, how would you get explosives under the world trade center buildings, blow them up, and kill 3,000 people, without anybody squeeling? Just not possible.

 

Now what IS possible, is that the Bush Administration knew Al Qaeda was up to something, and chose not to interfere, because they knew they could use a terrorist attack as a ruse to trigger all of their plans. Like Iraq. They'd been planning that since the first Gulf War, and you don't have the Iraq war without 9/11 (even though the two aren't actually connected in any logical way). You also don't have the tax cuts, you don't have the Patriot Act, you don't have the dissolution of international alliances, you don't have the massively wasteful and corrupt defense spending increases, etc., etc.

 

And you certainly don't have Bush getting re-elected in 2004 without 9/11.

 

Its been pretty well documented that the Bush Administration should have been more proactive in preventing these attacks. They had intel from the CIA, other foreign intelligence agencies, and the FBI that all indicated that something big was going down. Yet, they did nothing.

 

Was it because they are stupid and unbelievably inept? Thats quite possible, of course. Especially given their performance on pretty much everything else since taking the White House. But its also quite possible that they deliberately ignored the threat. Now that is a conspiracy that would require the cooperation of only a handful of high level cabinet officials.

 

We're talking gross negligence at the minimum, versus implicit cooperation with the attackers at the maximum.

 

On edit:

 

Testimony of Richard Clarke before 9/11 Commission:

On January 25th, we've seen a memo that you've written to Dr. Rice urgently asking for a principals' review of Al Qaida. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight Al Qaida and a response to the USS Cole. You attach to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000.

 

Do you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these? And how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

 

CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals' meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

 

ROEMER: So does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group as you had previously done?

 

CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February. Then when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of Al Qaida as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan, and launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address Al Qaida in the context of all of those inter-related issues. That process probably ended, I think in July of 2001. So we were ready for a principals meeting in July. But the principals calendar was full and then they went on vacation, many of them in August, so we couldn't meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September.

 

(Isn't it a heck of a coincidence that Bush took the longest Presidential vacation ever in August, and apparently almost all of his cabinet members were on vacation too...right before the biggest terrorism attack ever on U.S. soil.)

 

The Clarke testimony is critical to understanding the whole thing. The principals (cabinet members) didn't want to hear about terrorism before 9/11.

 

Transcript of Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 Commission: [url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/24/bn.00.html]http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/24/bn.00.html[/u

[peenie 2,035]

That's some good stuff. Very informative. And peenie, do you honestly believe that skyscrapers are built with explosives in them? Are you out of your mind? What if the explosives accidentally went off? What a ridiculous comment.

no, i'm not out of mind. it is simply my opinion. i am not trying to prove anything to anyone. all i am saying is that it is my belief, take it or leave it.

[Big Blue 06 196]

no, i'm not out of mind. it is simply my opinion. i am not trying to prove anything to anyone. all i am saying is that it is my belief, take it or leave it.

 

We are all entitled to our own opinion. It just happens that yours is wrong.

[peenie 2,035]

[Big Blue 06 196]

 

Except for everyone that disagrees with you.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

WTF makes you think we "need to be respectful of your opinion"? You are a whacked-out nutjob.

[Snoopy1 0]

WTF makes you think we "need to be respectful of your opinion"? You are a whacked-out nutjob.

 

 

Ironic statement of the year!

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Ironic statement of the year!

 

Well Cyric, I consider you and your Demwit brethren wrong on the issues, some of you are flat out liars, most are idiots, but I wouldn't consider you in the same class as any of the wacked-out nutjobs who buy into the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11.

 

HTH

[Cyber Gandalf 0]

There was this banker that worked in 2 World Trade...fired the week before the attacks.

 

He said he saw people in the inner sanctums...planting charges...doing fire drills...testing alarm systems...weird lights turning on and off in haphazard sequences...just odd ###### going on.

 

Makes you think...and hunger...for the truth.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

 

100+ stories falling should not make it rather dustlike? There were chunks by the way....

 

 

As for this thread...old news...shocker that an idiotic alias like CG brought it up again though.

 

This theory was blown out of the water twice now by Oak....great work...

[jerryskids 7,251]

There was this banker that worked in 2 World Trade...fired the week before the attacks.

 

He said he saw people in the inner sanctums...planting charges...doing fire drills...testing alarm systems...weird lights turning on and off in haphazard sequences...just odd ###### going on.

 

Makes you think...and hunger...for the truth.

Thanks for confirming that Cyber Gandolf = GF alias.

[buffalobillsffl2003 0]

Somebody forgot there were 3 buildings to be imploded.

 

 

[Cyber Gandalf 0]

A man was in the lobby at the time of the crash...he said it sounded like a bomb going off. The windows blew out in the lobby...1,000 feet below the impact! How do the sheep explain that?

[Sho Nuff 720]

A man was in the lobby at the time of the crash...he said it sounded like a bomb going off. The windows blew out in the lobby...1,000 feet below the impact! How do the sheep explain that?

 

 

How do you explain that not one shred of evidence supporting an explosion or explosives in those buildings has ever been presented?

 

Thank you...case closed.

[paradoxical 1]

your a fool

[Cyber Gandalf 0]

How do you explain that not one shred of evidence supporting an explosion or explosives in those buildings has ever been presented?

 

Thank you...case closed.

 

It's all addressed in this movie..."Loose Change" is the title. This should be required viewing for every American.

[dirty dug 0]

It's all addressed in the movie..."Loose Change" is the title. This should be required viewing for every American.

 

What's your preferred brand of aluminum foil?

[Cyber Gandalf 0]

What's your preferred brand of aluminum foil?

 

They sell it at Best Buy...not exactly Kook Video Emporium.

 

Think about it...why are more and more people adopting the 9/11 Truth Credo? Even mainstream celebs...Jimmy Brolin...Rosie O'Donnell...Chuck Sheen.

 

But do you ever hear 9/11 Truth people reverting to sheeple? No! Once you see the light...you never go back.

[dirty dug 0]

They sell it at Best Buy...not exactly Kook Video Emporium.

 

Think about it...why are more and more people adopting the 9/11 Truth Credo? Even mainstream celebs...Jimmy Brolin...Rosie O'Donnell...Chuck Sheen.

 

But do you ever hear 9/11 Truth people reverting to sheeple? No! Once you see the light...you never go back.

 

 

The truth is out there.

[edjr 7,097]

If you don't believe the 9/11 truth by now...your a fool

 

my fool what?