RE: The REAL truth (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

StrongButKind -> RE: The REAL truth (9/15/2006 7:08:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

Larry Silverstein from PBS program "America Rebuilds":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6ufakK2fIc

What is the meaning of the term "pull" in this context?


The decision to pull the firefighters from the building, effectively giving up on saving the building. He has never suggested at any time that he meant otherwise.



Rule -> RE: The REAL truth (9/15/2006 7:26:46 AM)

I agree with sissifytoserve and many others: those buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition.
 
Never before have any such buildings collapsed due to a short duration, little bit of fire like that - and not even after a very ferocious, lengthy fire.
 
When I first heard of a plane having flown into one of the towers, I thought little of it. I did not consider it a risk to such a tower at all.
 
I suspect that the only way to convince those who are in denial is to rebuild one of the towers and to fly an identical airplane into it. That should not cost all that much, as a partial rebuild at also a smaller scale will be sufficient. A cheap airplane may be acquired at one of those airplane graveyards - perhaps for free. The cost may be (partially) refurbished from advertisements, wagers whether it will or will not collapse and documentaries and such.



StrongButKind -> RE: The REAL truth (9/15/2006 7:51:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

I agree with sissifytoserve and many others: those buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition.
 
Never before have any such buildings collapsed due to a short duration, little bit of fire like that - and not even after a very ferocious, lengthy fire.
 
When I first heard of a plane having flown into one of the towers, I thought little of it. I did not consider it a risk to such a tower at all.
 
I suspect that the only way to convince those who are in denial is to rebuild one of the towers and to fly an identical airplane into it. That should not cost all that much, as a partial rebuild at also a smaller scale will be sufficient. A cheap airplane may be acquired at one of those airplane graveyards - perhaps for free. The cost may be (partially) refurbished from advertisements, wagers whether it will or will not collapse and documentaries and such.


Your issues with respect to this being the first time such a collapse has occurred are covered in the NIST report -- take a look. I'd love to read a credible alternate interpretation of the data if you have one.

Your rebuilding idea is fantastic in the sense I would love to get involved in wagering, but it would not answer the question as to what happened either way. To achieve any significance, it would have to be repeated many times. I also support this, though suppose it is cost-prohibitive.



Chaingang -> RE: The REAL truth (9/15/2006 10:12:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrongButKind
The decision to pull the firefighters from the building, effectively giving up on saving the building. He has never suggested at any time that he meant otherwise.


Yeah, he says "pull" twice - and the first time he uses the phrase "pull it" - not "pull them" or "pull them out" for example. So I guess that makes this cartoon style "pronoun trouble" at best. That's not rock hard evidence, but he is clearly talking about the intentional collapse of WTC 7.

I love these CSI type explanations you are willing to accept even though they are historical firsts. NIST's report noted that prior to this collapse there was no record of the fire-induced collapse of a large fire-protected steel building such as WTC 7.



Rule -> RE: The REAL truth (9/15/2006 10:15:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrongButKind
Your issues with respect to this being the first time such a collapse has occurred are covered in the NIST report -- take a look.
I may at a later time. At the moment I am running a fever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrongButKind
To achieve any significance, it would have to be repeated many times.

Why? It happened twice within one hour on the same day. Success rate: 100 % x 100 % = 10,000 %. Such a building should in such an experiment collapse for sure. We just build say forty stories, and add mass to the top. We may even use cheaper, more vulnerable materials and weaker steel supports. So if collapse is at all possible, it will be sure to happen - but I doubt that it will. We do not have to outfit it with bathrooms and electricity and stuff at all. It will be just a steel frame and some floors. The design plans already exist. Should be a relatively cheap experiment.



CrappyDom -> RE: The REAL truth (9/15/2006 10:45:49 AM)

Answer me this silly question.

Rigging the buildings with explosives would require a lot of risk both from being caught (the only guy in the US who "GOT" that terrorists were after us ran security and he sure as hell doesn't seem like the sort of traitor you would need to do this), discovery, leaks, and just shit happening.

So then you have to do all the work of doing the hijackings, flying the planes into the buildings and all.  Even without the collapse, Bush would have had the "pearl harbor" event they wanted and needed, so the very very risky cloak and dagger stuff was unneeded.

Sorry, I just don't buy it but I am willing to listen, so give it your best shot.



CrappyDom -> RE: The REAL truth (9/15/2006 10:52:28 AM)

The fact that you guys think you can get a used flying airliner for "free" is kind of amazing.  Do you realize what the simple scrap value is for that much aluminium?  And there are no 767s sitting around being stripped for parts.  Current airliners get mothballed until sold or leased and are valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

What brought the building down was the impact of 150 tons of airplane moving at 400+ mph, combined with the fuel load.  You can see it in the photos, the impact blew a hole through the building, igniting it all at once, defeating all of the fire resistance at once.  In addition, look at how the smoke was blowing out at a right angle, which means there was a strong wind, that wasn't a fire it was a blowtorch.



SirKenin -> RE: The REAL truth (9/15/2006 10:52:52 AM)

Here.  You conspiracy theorists absolutely do not have a damn clue in the world what you are talking about, so here is a link for the interested that want to listen to people that actually do:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Here is a link that directly refutes Rule's and sissify's assertions (it actually directly answers their allegations)

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Geez.  Give it up already.



NastyDaddy -> RE: The REAL truth (9/15/2006 11:04:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

Larry Silverstein from PBS program "America Rebuilds":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6ufakK2fIc

What is the meaning of the term "pull" in this context?

Since the fucking thing was about to fall down, I don't suppose "pulling" could even remotely possibly be anything to do with pulling the plug... disconnecting electrical power, water, telephone or cable tv to the building, or pulling the rescue workers.

Nahh... it's GOT to be that guy standing in the middle of the street with a ripcord... yeah, time to "pull" the ripcord Eugene... "PULL IT BRO!!!"

The real mystery is where the hell did Eugene go after he "pulled"... but it's all too totally obvious that the tin hat mothership picked Eugene up.  Those stoopid pesky humans!



Chaingang -> RE: The REAL truth (9/15/2006 11:20:40 AM)

I just don't buy the official story. I think there is plenty of room for doubt for much of what happened that day. I also consider it a duty of citizenship to be actively interested in alternative viewpoints.



Rule -> RE: The REAL truth (9/15/2006 11:28:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
Rigging the buildings with explosives would require a lot of risk both from being caught, discovery, leaks, and just shit happening.
Caught by whom? Large sections of the towers were not occupied. Towers security provided cover for those who rigged the buildings. Nobody would leak. Anything reported to the FBI simply eventually would result in a negative feedback murder. Piece of cake.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
So then you have to do all the work of doing the hijackings,
Why? There is not one bit of credible evidence that those planes were occupied and only two of them ever departed from an airfield. The other two were 'ghosts'.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
flying the planes into the buildings and all.

So? They flew an unmanned plane from California to Australia and back again before that. Piece of cake.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
Even without the collapse, Bush would have had the "pearl harbor" event they wanted and needed, so the very very risky cloak and dagger stuff was unneeded.

Actually they intended to kill many more people, but 'shit happened' and most people escaped.



EnglishDomNW -> RE: The REAL truth (9/15/2006 11:39:29 AM)

I think whenever something happens (JFK, Princess Diana, 9/11) there are always going to be conspiracy theories.  Let's be honest, it's probably a good job there are, otherwise things might start happening because we don't keep an eye on them.



LotusSong -> RE: Controlled demolition (9/15/2006 11:43:36 AM)

Sissy..I do enjoy your posts :)
 
After reading this thread.. it occurred to me.. as long as GWB and Friends has us arguing among ourselves.. he have no time to to watch him.



CrappyDom -> RE: The REAL truth (9/15/2006 11:44:59 AM)

Rule, 

So you are saying that all they guys in Security, including the head  of it, John Oneal were willing to do to betray America and either committed suicide in the tower or have all been wisked away from friends and family and not a single one squealed?

You are going to have to post a link from someplace credible siting that expensive NY real estate was vacant, in a place where people read the obits trying to find apartment openings.

Credible evidence that they were occupied?  Give me a giant fucking break.  Should someone have interviewed them first?  The airlines have lists of the people on board, their families exist, did those people get whisked off to?  Again why, your theory is so full of holes.

As for my whole why of going to more trouble and risk than they needed to.  America was going to give Bush a free hand even if the towers didn't collapse.

I have no doubt Bush knew, at least on some level, what Al Queda and Bin Laudin were up to, but since they were determined to strike here, why go to such elobrate lengths to fake it.

You had to have people install the remote controls on the airplanes, you had to have people remotely flying them, you had to have them take off from airfields with people on them, I cannot imagine you could hide such a widespread conspiracy requiring hundreds of people who could all see enough of the pie to have come forward now.




Chaingang -> RE: The REAL truth (9/15/2006 11:55:51 AM)

Everything is a conspiracy. If you want to know what I really don't believe in it would be solitary actor theories.

Look at the Oklahoma City bombing scenario: one guy in a Ryder truck 16 feet away from the building as revenge for Waco. There are numerous eye witness accounts of other participants and they won't release the video footage that they have. So yeah, that's hardly a settled matter.

Look at the assassination attempt on Reagan: There are many that say the Bush and Hinckley families were friends. Seriously, is it so much of a stretch to believe that the number two man planned a hit on the number one man in the country? That's politics as usual since time immemorial. And let's not forget that this would be at least hit number two for Bush Sr. as he was in Dallas on behalf of the CIA the day of the Kennedy hit. Instead, we are asked to believe that Hinckley acted alone because of an obsession over lesbian actress Jodie Foster. I guess flowers just don't signify romance the way they used to...

In what world do political assassinations and political conspiracies not exist?



Rule -> RE: The REAL truth (9/15/2006 1:46:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
So you are saying that all they guys in Security, including the head  of it, John Oneal were willing to do to betray America and either committed suicide in the tower or have all been wisked away from friends and family and not a single one squealed?
You now are high on my list of possible master criminals, CD.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
You are going to have to post a link from someplace credible siting that expensive NY real estate was vacant, in a place where people read the obits trying to find apartment openings.

You mean in the towers? It is well known that whole floors were either not occupied or that only a small area of them was occupied by offices. If you have investigated 9-11, then how come that you do not know about that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
Credible evidence that they were occupied?  Give me a giant fucking break.  Should someone have interviewed them first?  The airlines have lists of the people on board, their families exist, did those people get whisked off too?
You want lists of paper names? Names of people who are prepared to disappear from the face of the Earth? There are plenty of such people. There are plenty of people who voluntarily disappear. And there are plenty of ten million dollar chalets in luxury vacation residences, like Hawaii.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
As for my whole why of going to more trouble and risk than they needed to.  America was going to give Bush a free hand even if the towers didn't collapse.

Why, if it had been only one airplane and the tower had not collapsed, people might have suspected that it was a conspiracy. As any magician knows, a magic trick is more credible if it is over the top.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
I have no doubt Bush knew, at least on some level, what Al Queda and Bin Laudin were up to, but since they were determined to strike here, why go to such elobrate lengths to fake it.

To have a legitimate excuse to conquer Afghanistan and Iraq. (The next target is Iran: it is now on all sides surrounded by US troops.)

Oh, wait, I see: you belief that Al Queda and Bin L. had something to do with it. It is well known that Bin L. was an obedient CIA puppet. He has been accused of a lot, but I do not consider any of the evidence as to that credible: it all seems fabricated. I reiterate: there is no credible evidence that any person was aboard those airplanes, least of all members of Al Queda.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
You had to have people install the remote controls on the airplanes, you had to have people remotely flying them,

So?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
you had to have them take off from airfields with people on them,

Only two of those airplanes have been documented as having taken off from an airfield. There is no credible evidence at all that they had people aboard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
I cannot imagine you could hide such a widespread conspiracy requiring hundreds of people who could all see enough of the pie to have come forward now.

Pff. Do you have any idea how many hundreds of thousands of people are involved in a large military operation? And why come forward? If you are part of a bank robbery do you afterward come forward and confess to your crimes? And say you are as stupid as to do that? Whom do you confess to? The police? They will refer you to the FBI. The FBI? They will refer you to one of their special agents. The special agent? He will arrange for you to make a lethal fall from the stairs the next day. Or are you going to the press? The end result will be the same: your story will be suppressed and the next day you make a lethal fall from the stairs.



CrappyDom -> RE: The REAL truth (9/15/2006 1:58:29 PM)

Rule,

I used to have some respect for you but you lost me today.  Do you really believe that you could have the massive numbers of people out there needed to pull of what you are describing that and yet seeing how their actions have been used/perverted/manipulated by a group that more and more people are seing as actual traitors and none of those people have come forward? 

Give me a fat break, this sort of crap gives conspiracy theories a bad name.



Rule -> RE: The REAL truth (9/15/2006 2:16:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
I used to have some respect for you but you lost me today.
Ah, a fan! And I never knew...
 
But a disloyal fan, easily swayed. Does not respect - even some respect - count for anything anymore? Do you always lightly dismiss the wisdom of those for whom you have some respect?
 
Why are the sweet lies of con men nearly always believed, while the harsh truths of the wise are disbelieved?



Chaingang -> Controlled demolition, not a comforting lie (9/15/2006 2:19:32 PM)

Yeah, except that you apparently believe the exact same thing about the JFK thing, CrappyDom. Your just being selective in a way that makes little sense and will make even less sense as the years pass.

I think the main point of this thread is that 3 buildings fell, all the same day, all strikingly like controlled demolitions, all of them specifically designed to withstand the kinds of fires that supposedly brought them down (and all therefore historical firsts). The official story has everyone scrambling to justify it instead of what seems obvious at first glance. No one really doubts that the findings of the 911 are utter crap, but even given that everyone seems very eager to buy the official story. Why is that?

I mean - do people not believe in the process undertaken by the 911 Commission, but still ultimately agree with their findings? What kind of fence-sitting is that? Does it hurt?



sissifytoserve -> RE: Controlled demolition (9/15/2006 2:35:29 PM)

AGAIN.......


WHERE is the "red hot fire?"


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.222656E-02