Jump to content

9/11 Controlled demolition.


Parky
 Share

[[Template core/global/global/poll is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Recommended Posts

''At night?'' Chix

 

Ample oppurtunity under the guise of maintenance during the day really. Call me Columbo. Oh and the security firms were changed about a year before the incident. Might want to look into that as well. coffee.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point about academics having differing views isn't to do with young earth theory though - any view on "What should have happened" to the WTC, or, before the event what would happened, is simply theories.  Science is, by its very nature, fluid.  You theorise one thing and something happens to change that theory.  The people making these videos hope that by wheeling out Dr Nick Riviera PhD, they can infer that the general consensus of the scientific community is that "Mega skyscrapers don't collapse that way when planes hit them in that way."  It isn't.  You can find peers of people such as Kevin Barrett, who heads the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" lot who say things like

"He's a fruitcake," says Marshall F. Onellion, a physics professor at the University of Wisconsin. "He has no education in any engineering or science area pertinent to how, or whether, buildings fall down when hit by airplanes. Since he can't evaluate the evidence presented, he shouldn't have an opinion" that will influence students.

 

And plenty of people with a .edu address who are willing to explain the faulty science behind such theories, thus

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

 

As for the guy who said they were supposedly "jet-proof", the Titanic was supposedly sink-proof.  Did he specify if they were supposed to widthstand a plane hit in the usual scenario of an accidental hit where the pilot is trying to avert disaster, or were they specifically "12 nutters wanging it at full pelt in a passenger jet with a full load of fuel proof"?

 

You're asking us to believe that someone (with the inference being that only a US governement-linked agency could pull it off) has the manpower, expertise, influence and intelligence to pull off a gigantic terrorist attack on the US, the like that has never been seen before, but, knowing that it would be subject to scruteny not seen since the JFK assasination, chose to fly jets at a jet-proof building and then demolish with bombs in such a way that anyone with a basic knowledge of physics could see that is what happened.  You're free to believe that, I don't.

 

Was Bush, or his pupeteers involved by the way?  Was it to pre-empt an attack on Iraq?  Why did they not say it was Iraqis then, rather than neo-con marras the Sauds?  Was it to get people on-side with the new administration?  If so, why was Bush left sitting like a complete plank for ages waiting for someone to tell him what to do, rather than immediately on the scene doing his Captain America impression?  There's more holes in this theory than the toons defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me I want a refund on the last 15 mins of my life.

 

I have a simple straightforward question for you Perky.

 

Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

 

Fruitloops the lot of ye.  :roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me I want a refund on the last 15 mins of my life.

 

I have a simple straightforward question for you Perky.

 

Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

 

Fruitloops the lot of ye.  :roll:

 

Site bought by Silverstein from Port authority for $4bn some months before and insurance taken out. As they collpased the pay out was $7bn. That motivation enough for ye pud?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

 

Might have something to do with this? 

 

As a private developer with a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the property. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, he sought payment for the destruction of the towers as two incidents. The two dozen insurers held that it was one incident. If it were considered to be a single incident, the payout would be $3.55 billion and if it were two incidents, it would be $7.1 billion. Silverstein sued the insurers. On December 6, 2004, a federal jury ruled in favor of Silverstein giving him an additional $1.1 billion from nine insurers, declaring it to be two "occurrences". [6] However, in a previous trial, a different federal jury delivered a mixed verdict which highly favored insurers on April 29, 2004 [7]

 

At dispute in the trial were interpretation of standard forms used in the application for property insurance and when particular insurers saw which documents.[8]

 

In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers [9]. He plans to use some or all of the settlement to rebuild.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me I want a refund on the last 15 mins of my life.

 

I have a simple straightforward question for you Perky.

 

Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

 

Fruitloops the lot of ye. :roll:

 

Really don't see the point in getting worked up about it. However it happened, the fact remains - it happened. Even if you can categorically prove it was all part of some elaborate American New Rightist plot, what the fuck does it achieve?

 

My talents here are obviously wasted. bluesigh.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

 

Might have something to do with this? 

 

As a private developer with a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the property. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, he sought payment for the destruction of the towers as two incidents. The two dozen insurers held that it was one incident. If it were considered to be a single incident, the payout would be $3.55 billion and if it were two incidents, it would be $7.1 billion. Silverstein sued the insurers. On December 6, 2004, a federal jury ruled in favor of Silverstein giving him an additional $1.1 billion from nine insurers, declaring it to be two "occurrences". [6] However, in a previous trial, a different federal jury delivered a mixed verdict which highly favored insurers on April 29, 2004 [7]

 

At dispute in the trial were interpretation of standard forms used in the application for property insurance and when particular insurers saw which documents.[8]

 

In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers [9]. He plans to use some or all of the settlement to rebuild.

 

I stand corrected but its all from memory with me and thats fucked nowadays.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

 

Might have something to do with this? 

 

As a private developer with a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the property. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, he sought payment for the destruction of the towers as two incidents. The two dozen insurers held that it was one incident. If it were considered to be a single incident, the payout would be $3.55 billion and if it were two incidents, it would be $7.1 billion. Silverstein sued the insurers. On December 6, 2004, a federal jury ruled in favor of Silverstein giving him an additional $1.1 billion from nine insurers, declaring it to be two "occurrences". [6] However, in a previous trial, a different federal jury delivered a mixed verdict which highly favored insurers on April 29, 2004 [7]

 

At dispute in the trial were interpretation of standard forms used in the application for property insurance and when particular insurers saw which documents.[8]

 

In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers [9]. He plans to use some or all of the settlement to rebuild.

 

I stand corrected but its all from memory with me and thats fucked nowadays.

 

I thought I'd best get a googled site, I seen Rehhagel lurking.  :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

 

Might have something to do with this? 

 

As a private developer with a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the property. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, he sought payment for the destruction of the towers as two incidents. The two dozen insurers held that it was one incident. If it were considered to be a single incident, the payout would be $3.55 billion and if it were two incidents, it would be $7.1 billion. Silverstein sued the insurers. On December 6, 2004, a federal jury ruled in favor of Silverstein giving him an additional $1.1 billion from nine insurers, declaring it to be two "occurrences". [6] However, in a previous trial, a different federal jury delivered a mixed verdict which highly favored insurers on April 29, 2004 [7]

 

At dispute in the trial were interpretation of standard forms used in the application for property insurance and when particular insurers saw which documents.[8]

 

In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers [9]. He plans to use some or all of the settlement to rebuild.

 

I stand corrected but its all from memory with me and thats fucked nowadays.

 

I thought I'd best get a googled site, I seen Rehhagel lurking.  :D

 

He still made a billion clear profit and owned the best real estate in Manhattan. Fuck me thats some business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

 

Might have something to do with this? 

 

As a private developer with a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the property. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, he sought payment for the destruction of the towers as two incidents. The two dozen insurers held that it was one incident. If it were considered to be a single incident, the payout would be $3.55 billion and if it were two incidents, it would be $7.1 billion. Silverstein sued the insurers. On December 6, 2004, a federal jury ruled in favor of Silverstein giving him an additional $1.1 billion from nine insurers, declaring it to be two "occurrences". [6] However, in a previous trial, a different federal jury delivered a mixed verdict which highly favored insurers on April 29, 2004 [7]

 

At dispute in the trial were interpretation of standard forms used in the application for property insurance and when particular insurers saw which documents.[8]

 

In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers [9]. He plans to use some or all of the settlement to rebuild.

 

I stand corrected but its all from memory with me and thats fucked nowadays.

 

I thought I'd best get a googled site, I seen Rehhagel lurking.  :D

 

He still made a billion clear profit and owned the best real estate in Manhattan. Fuck me thats some business.

 

he only bought the complex a few months before 9/11 too...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blau Star:

 

''As for the guy who said they were supposedly "jet-proof", the Titanic was supposedly sink-proof.  Did he specify if they were supposed to widthstand a plane hit in the usual scenario of an accidental hit where the pilot is trying to avert disaster, or were they specifically "12 nutters wanging it at full pelt in a passenger jet with a full load of fuel proof"?

 

Some common misconceptions here...I'll clear up. Big Jets are build like sardine cans, they have to be as light as possible of airline companies won't buy them as fuel saving is of primary concern. 2. Jet fuel burns off very quickly, all the fuel would have been spent inside a minute. The seconday fires is what people would have seen and it are these ie office stuff which is meant to have molten the steel?? 3. The Jet hitting the second tower almost missed and you can clearyl see most of the fuel burning off outside the building. 4. For this fuel to have weakend the entire structure it would have to have spread down the whole central steel core of the building, THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. The main fuel burn site was very near the top of BOTH BUILDING. IMO forget the jet fuel burning theory it is not even worth considering for a man of your intelligence and the average layman who looks at this issue a bit deeper.

 

You're asking us to believe that someone (with the inference being that only a US governement-linked agency could pull it off) has the manpower, expertise, influence and intelligence to pull off a gigantic terrorist attack on the US, the like that has never been seen before, but, knowing that it would be subject to scruteny not seen since the JFK assasination, chose to fly jets at a jet-proof building and then demolish with bombs in such a way that anyone with a basic knowledge of physics could see that is what happened.  You're free to believe that, I don't.

 

No idea who pulled this off, aided it or kept quiet it was going to happen and so I can't really posit a worthwile theory around this point. But what is clear is who benefitted from this tragic incident. My opinon is that Bush or his close cohorts had nothing to do with it, maybe a rogue element in some parts of the Govt or intelligence services or intelligence services form different countries helped or at the very leat conspired to keep it quiet. I am sure and there is plenty of evidence that certain people knew something was going to happen, the stock market reports for one.

 

Was Bush, or his pupeteers involved by the way?  Was it to pre-empt an attack on Iraq?  Why did they not say it was Iraqis then, rather than neo-con marras the Sauds?  Was it to get people on-side with the new administration?  If so, why was Bush left sitting like a complete plank for ages waiting for someone to tell him what to do, rather than immediately on the scene doing his Captain America impression?  There's more holes in this theory than the toons defence.''

 

Answered the first bit above. For a long time they did say that AL QUEIDA WAS LINKED WITH IRAQ it is well documented by speeches of various Govt spokesman especially DICK CHENEY. I don't think it was an attempt to simply get people on the ''side of the admin'', definetely not on the side of BUSH anyway. I agree he came out of it very badly and interestingly was protected during THAT DAY very badly...I think more than anything it was a WARNING TO THE ADMIN. But from whom I have no idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty excited at the moment, and I want to share this excitement with fellow members.

 

The power of prayer has been questioned by many, but I have proof that prayer does in fact work, although God does not fulfil 100% of a prayer, he does try his best to get as close as possible. That he never fulfils 100% does not diminish his power or the effects and truth of prayer, as he has a difficult job due to conflicting prayers.

 

I wrote the following:

 

Re: Telephone Telepathy

« Reply #16 on: September 06, 2006, 02:37:12 PM »

 

There is proof that prayer works. Whenever a boxer wins a title fight he always thanks god, or whenever an American athlete wins a gold. Bush must have prayed to be president too.

 

I pray that Bluff will come back and post a link from today's Daily Mail article about the 9/11 Scholars for Truth.

 

God's answer was:

BlufPurdi

Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.

« Reply #37 on: Today at 01:29:22 PM »

 

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html#FullMembers

 

A list of those involved.  They are not all crackpots, to be fair.  They make good arguments, that are ignored because people don't want to listen, as they've accepted the current version of events.

 

Sure he was 9 days late (he is busy), and Bluf did not post a link about the scholars from the Daily Mail article, but this does not mean prayer does not work, for essentially I asked God to make Bluf post about the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", and he did.

 

This is a beautiful day for all of us, I feel like running to the local grocers and lobbing a grenade at the grocerer while shouting "God eats grapes!", as he's defying God's plan by selling apples which we all know is against his wishes.

 

 

 

Regarding those scholars, of the full members I am most convinced by:

 

1. Kevin Barrett (FM)

Folklore

 

2. John Bylsma (FM)

French language and culture

 

3. Harriet Cianci (FM)

Tunxis Community College, CT    (What subject is that?)

 

4. Davidson Loehr (FM)

Theology; Philosophy of science; Philosophy of religion  (We need a theologist to explain how God made Bush blow up the towers)

 

5. Raymond Munro (FM)

Professor of Theatre, Clark University  (We need him to re-enact the scene for us)

 

6. Larry Burk (FM)

Radiology, Medical hypnosis (You are feeling sleepy, very sleepy, now repeat after me "Bush blew up the twin towers to get oil from Iraq)

 

 

These guys are doing a great job, and I admire the humility of those that don't state where they are scholars, especially Mr John Bylsma.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me I want a refund on the last 15 mins of my life.

 

I have a simple straightforward question for you Perky.

 

Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

 

Fruitloops the lot of ye.  :roll:

 

Site bought by Silverstein from Port authority for $4bn some months before and insurance taken out. As they collpased the pay out was $7bn. That motivation enough for ye pud?

 

Ok then, if thats the case then reverse the question. Why fly two commercial airliners into them? why not just fill it with explosives, and blow them up? still blame the Islamic terrorists but save yourself a whole load of hassle in the process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me I want a refund on the last 15 mins of my life.

 

I have a simple straightforward question for you Perky.

 

Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

 

Fruitloops the lot of ye.  :roll:

 

Site bought by Silverstein from Port authority for $4bn some months before and insurance taken out. As they collpased the pay out was $7bn. That motivation enough for ye pud?

 

Ok then, if thats the case then reverse the question. Why fly two commercial airliners into them? why not just fill it with explosives, and blow them up? still blame the Islamic terrorists but save yourself a whole load of hassle in the process.

 

Because Islamic terrorists couldn't conceivably place detonation devices in specific places?  Whereas you can fly planes into it, then use that as the reason they fell, but really they fell due to pre-planned explosives?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok then, if thats the case then reverse the question. Why fly two commercial airliners into them? why not just fill it with explosives, and blow them up? still blame the Islamic terrorists but save yourself a whole load of hassle in the process.

 

The usual response to such questions is "Don't ask me, ask the perps!" as above, followed by some faulty science about how physics proves it couldn't have just been planes which is aready adequately debunked in the link I posted which Parky removed from the things he was replying to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally can only go on what I saw and what I saw was two planes fly into the WTC and then them collapse on themselves like a planned demolition. There is no doubt in my mind some mad Arabs with stanley knives hijacked the planes but I wouldn't be at all suprised  if the government knew about this and simply failed to act for several reasons.

 

People get all flustered about trying to prove 9/11 was a conspiracy. If you want a higher soap box to preach from then just have a quick look at the Oklahoma City Bombing in '95. Tonnes of firm evidence backing up the fact it wasn't what it seemed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

''The usual response to such questions is "Don't ask me, ask the perps!" as above, followed by some faulty science about how it wouldn't happen, which is aready adequately debunked in the link I posted which Parky removed from the things he was replying to. ''

 

The failure to quote link conspiracy? :lol:

 

I read the link, it was a good one, but no different from the 15 or so others I've read. Very raitonal and dismissive. Of course it could all be true (the official version), so why the reluctance to let independant analysts look at the site? And why the delaying (some 8 months) before Bush even condescended to the enquiry? These are the things that make me curious. Maybe that's just me. We can take a bet if you like that the official story will change in the next 3 years?

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok then, if thats the case then reverse the question. Why fly two commercial airliners into them? why not just fill it with explosives, and blow them up? still blame the Islamic terrorists but save yourself a whole load of hassle in the process.

 

The usual response to such questions is "Don't ask me, ask the perps!" as above, followed by some faulty science about how physics proves it couldn't have just been planes which is aready adequately debunked in the link I posted which Parky removed from the things he was replying to.

And you've all chomped tbh. He's having a larf imo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...