Bit: >still doesnt mean cops say green kills u...that still >remains utter bs Never said they said it kills you. Better retrace. Seems your reading skills are the thing that is utter BS. JB
first, kill or end the life as u know it; either way it is still bs. second this argument is pointless, if u think they lied to move u, that's your right, i dont buy that [away just from wtc7? why?].
I agree that the so-called "squibs" are randon in nature. I guess that is how they used them for demolition in 2001...
1. Your arguments are plausible re the squib refutation. Yet, in the absence of a controlled experiment to recreate the conditions that existed in the towers on 9/11 (virtual impossibility), I would prefer the simpler explanation, by occam's razor. Your conjecture that pressure "bypassed" certain floors or that some windows were improperly installed introduces many more assumptions into the explanation than the simple observation that the phenomenon occuring on the lower levels is almost if not purely identical to a demoltion squib. 2. Re the explosions. Of course, somebody saying I heard an explosion does not imply that it was a bomb explosion. What bothers me however, is at least two witnesses who came forward to report bomb-like explosions going off BEFORE and AFTER the plane crashes in the LOWER sub levels of the towers. One of these witnesses is William Rodriguez and the other is the testimony of the New York construction worker on the 9/11 mysteries video. One could also add the multitude reports of other witnesses hearing explosions, but I will play by your rules and assume that New Yorkers are dumb folk who can't tell a bomb from a chandelier crashing to the ground. 3. Your one time experience with a demolition should be a nice thing to have in mind. Good for you. However, if I understood the commentary on the steel structure of the towers, there was reinforced steel at certain levels in the towers, not all, and it would not have required explosives on all levels to bring it down, once the top had been cracked by the planes. That is classic demolition, blow the basement and key levels and crack the top to 'top it off'. 4. You say that the collapse of the tower doesn't look anything like a demolition? By George, the things collapsed in under 10 seconds no? How can it be that no other building has collapsed due to a fire in the history of civilization and yet this one 'pancakes' at a speed of near free fall? Wouldn't your argument and the official version of what happened (jet fuel combined with material inside building caused structural weakness and collapse) be more plausible if the building's collapse had taken longer to materialize? To me, the speed at which the buildings came down should be a major red flag. Before I turn the floor back to you Turok, please also answer me on this disturbing fact: Why was there a major power down in the towers only days before the attacks? That came across as extremely odd to Scott Forbes, a british database software engineer who was on duty for his investment bank on those days. Scott brought his concerns to the government and 9/11 commission, and was completely ignored. A power down means no security/surveillance. Scott also reported on weird activity going on the 34th floor shortly before the attacks, what sounded like drilling/hammering/banging stuff around that left dust all over. Sounds strange doesn't it? Check this out when you have some time: http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
the guy presiding the commission was the same fella that was upset by the condi's draft about american future direction and himself introduced that pre-emptive strikes will be the only way forward. all this well before 911. and shall i remember u that the patriot act was laying on the president and vice-pres desks months before 911?
1 - Can you please show us a building that has been hit by a 767 where the building did not collapse? Maybe a really tall, thin building? 2- Can you even fathom that any type of construction could of been going on anywhere in the towers? 3- Can you show us an example of the dust that was "left all over"? 4- Can you show us any reports or anything else on this "dust"? Was this "dust" investigated and by whom? And if not, why not? 5- Can you fathom that dust from construction could of gotten into the air ducts and went to other floors? Of couse you can. Because you already believe that this "dust" was "left all over". 6- How many witnesses reported this dust? 7- How many other witnesses besides William Rodriguez and the construction worker reported these "explosions"? And why didn't they get interviewed in the 9/11 Mysteries video? 8- Pretty convincing bringing up the "dumb" New Yorkers bit... 9- Am I the only one who sees many floors at the top of tower 1 or 2 (can't remember which one it was at the moment) come down all at once at an angle? Do you think it had a lot of weight that could of blown down through the floors creating lots of air pressure? 10- How many more "witnesses" reported the power down besides Scott Forbes? Did Scott see the "weird" activity on the 34th floor? Did he take any pictures? Did anyone else see or hear this activity? 11- Was this "power down" the first, one and only "power down" in the history of the WTC? Yes, everything sounds strange that you have mentioned. But only if you hear it from the angle of a conspiracy theorist . BTW... Everyone in this thead is being watched by the US government. Your phone calls are bugged, everything you do on your computer is being spyed on, and your very life is in danger. Be careful, the US Government is out to get you.
I didn't know any of that, thanks. In fact, reading more about Zelikow, it looks like he was a bit of a bush family insider/expert on the reprocussions and effects of a (at that time hypothetical) successful world trade center attack and lo and behold actually predicted 911 and it's reprocussions with astonishing accuracy in a 1998 article. If I didn't know better, I'd say his area of expertise prior to the commission, which in his words was "public myths" ... strikes me as a significantly biased orientation for someone staffing and heading what was supposed to be an objective investigative body, not one predisposed and preordained for public myth prevention and management. from wiki: Philip Zelikow has co-authored many books. He wrote a book with Ernest May on The Kennedy Tapes, and another with Joseph Nye and David C. King on Why People Donât Trust Government. He wrote Germany Unified and Europe Transformed with Condoleezza Rice. Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, âpublic mythsâ or âpublic presumptions,â which he defines as âbeliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called ââsearingâ or âmoldingâ events [that] take on âtranscendentâ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. In the United States, beliefs about the formation of the nation and the Constitution remain powerful today, as do beliefs about slavery and the Civil War. World War II, Vietnam, and the civil rights struggle are more recent examples.â He has noted that âa historyâs narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make a connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at allâ ("Thinking about Political History," Miller Center Report [Winter 1999], pp. 5-7). In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled âCatastrophic Terrorism,â in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, âthe resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine Americaâs fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.â Philip Zelikow served on President Bush's transition team in 2000-2001.
air pressure pushin air down and out by breaking windows does not seem to be super nonsense to me. sorry, just saw this was already discussed in length.
i find it sounds somehow strange and i would say the way the whole sentence sounds is like he cannot have meant the men. nevertheless, the conspiracy claim here sounds very unlikely to me. i mean, the guy does not at all look like someone who just did one of the biggest crimes in human history. and even if he was such a cool guy, why the hell should it happen to him that he talks about "pulling" a building when to hide this must have been his one and only concern that day. so: either he was a very cool conspiracyMember, then such mistake is nonsense, or he made the mistake because he was so nervous, then why doesn't he look like nervous at all. thing could be that it looked like "pulling" to him as it does to the conspiracy investigators - though it was none.
this guy sums up my thinking so far. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM&NR the real point to me is "would have destroyed the republican party forever". that sums it all up. if you want to build reason for war, you do not do that at home at your very heart. not there. not that way.