Who What Where When Why: Official WTC 7 Destruction Makes No Sense - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

~Ray · 08-22-2011, 02:40 AM

hundo

Quagmire · 08-22-2011, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

No Quagmire....

A "Rational person" would NOT think that this or any other building was "brought down for security reasons". This is basic conspiracy theorists nonsense. This has been the basis of the argument for every Truther out there.

There are so many other ways to destroy information. Destroying a building is a very ineffcient way to destroy information - so much of it would still be left behind, as anyone could plainly see by all of the paper floating around after WTC 1&2. No "Rational" person would ever agree with such a ridiculous claim.

The earth is flat. To think otherwise is absurd.

TheSquealer · 08-22-2011, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

And your point is what?

That the CIA had something secret hidden in office clearly marked "CIA"? It's the god damn fucking CIA - If they want to hide something, they'll hide in a place we'll never know about.

The Secret Service? What do they to have hide? And the SEC?

Blowing up the building and spreading out all of the documents through out NYC and then giving access to the destroyed building to policemen, firemen, rescue workers, and then construction guys... Sounds like a great way to destroy something.

Besides, everything at those offices were backed up on severs anyhow.

I was being sarcastic and agreeing with you with rhetorical questions.

At ease soldier!

MediaGuy · 09-02-2011, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

t's obviously logical that the surrounding buildings would have suffered the most damage.

The ones that suffered the most damage did not collapse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Why don't you question why the buildings next to WTC7 didn't fall? All of the buildings suffered various degrees of damage that day, some more than others.

Most buildings suffered more damage from falling debris than WTC 7. They suffered extreme damage and because of the amount of asbestos were absolved by their insurance holders, helped along by the presence of iron microspheres that pointed to WTC for damages.

Iron micro-spheres can only be created by extreme heat, which if all you had was airplane fuel, could not possibly exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

The US administration claimed it did, and claimed falsely Al-Qaeda had a deal with Sadam and trained in Iraq. All lies. Because of 9/11 the government had public support for this vast expenditure of money and human life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The only thing that 9/11 caused was tight security at airports (and tighter security over all), we invaded Afghanistan, and we are now hunting down terrorists.

Hunting down Mujahideen jihadists who trained and worked with the US in Bosnia, Chechnya, the Balkans and countless other "revolutions" since 9/11 - and who were reportedly still on the payroll on 9/11 including Bin Laden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

No, it doesn't require any faith at all. When tall buildings come down they don't tip over - they collapse.

If tall steel buildings weren't demolished properly and they were allowed to "collapse" it wouldn't be perfectly symetrical, at least not three times in one day. When tall buildings are hit by earthquakes and other disasters, they tip over. When demolitions fail, the buildings tip rather than collapse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

What do you mean a proper investigation wasn't done? Did you not hear about the 9/11 commission report?

The 9/11 commission reported only facts that suited the official story. They omitted anything contradictory - such as hundreds of firefighters' reports of explosions before collapse, building workers reporting explosions before the planes hit, etc...

What's significant with the 9/11 Commission Report (which the head of the commission admitted was incomplete, and complained along with other members - some of whom resigned over this - was obstructed from the beginning) is not what it reports, but what it omits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

In fact, there was an investigation into WTC7 - multiple investigations:

<<source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center>>

So don't imply there wasn't an investigation into why WTC7 fell - there was.

The Joint Inquiry let leaders and officials testify whatever they wanted - many later contradicted or proven false and ignored. The same "incompetents" who failed at their jobs that day were all promoted without exception.

The FEMA report showed indications of anomalous steel corrosion not explained by office fires. FEMA was replaced by NIST. NIST used a small percentage of the steel from WTC (the parts directly impacted by the planes, the parts hit by debris) and ignored the rest as irrelevant, and used computers to create a simulation of everything that lead up to the collapse but nothing during the collapse, and nothing after (foundry-temperature fires and molten steel in the collapse areas).

The investigations were artful contrivance and avoidance of available evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

And yet no one has come forward saying "Oh, the US government was behind it".

Plenty of people have come forward disputing claims, trying to report evidence, and simply been gagged, ignored or had their security clearances revoked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

A proper investigation was done. It was one of the few investigations ever to be released as a book and sold to the public. For some reason people think a "proper" investigation wasn't done. It was.

Apart from being obstructed and "influenced" by administration sources, the investigation would never have happened if it hadn't been for the wives of victims harassing the governmen. When it was finally approved, it had no budget.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

for every "thousand experts" that believe in this, there are thousands more who believe it wasn't done by explosives.

Thousands of experts have not examined the proof, or are too concerned with their grants and careers to challenge the government version.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Your not talking about one minor incident (like a car crash), your talking about hundreds of things that happened over the course of an entire day at multiple locations and in some cases spread out over entire city blocks. And your talking about thousands of witnesses.

Originally I just thought this was pay back for what the US was doing in other countries (establishing permanent army bases in Saudi Arabia etc...). But the many other weirdnesses of 9/11 as reported, and the flimsy uncorroborated government version, and seeing the collapses and then finding out about all the pre-9/11 knowledge of "terrorist" (US CIA assets and employees) activity inside the country, and the coincidental multiple failures of air support and protection that day, made me look deeper into it all.

The government maybe didn't do it, but their failures and/or deliberate (?) lack of action that day are either way criminal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

You have one witness who says it was a missile who hit the Pentagon, and another who says it was clearly a large passenger jet. People see different things.

So you're saying your believe what the government tells us about this litmus test rather than investigate? I mean, all the evidence was shipped off before it should be analyzed forensically - how could anyone believe any one thing above another in this case?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The biggest problem with the 9/11 Truth movement is that no one can explain why anyone would want this to happen?

Plans for the division of the Iraq oil fields were drawn up months before 9/11 by the Bush administration

Bush has said he needed an "excuse" to invade Iraq and that 9/11 was an opportunity.

Between the end of the cold war and 9/11, government military spending went down and flatlined. This was very bad for the Carlysle Group and Bush Sr.'s other friends.

The Taliban had to be removed and replaced in Afghanistan by someone who could secure the oil pipelines (US now has permanent military bases there to do this), and allow heroin poppy production to start again (under the Taliban, heroin had reached an all time low; the CIA need drug running to keep foreign operations financed), and there are many other mineral and ground rights available post-war in those two countries to be exploited by US interests.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Silverstein was talking about the fire unit when he said they had to "pull it." It was in reference to getting the unit out of the building.

The "fire units" had been pulled out hours earlier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I find "Operation Northwoods" to be both amusing and interesting.

Yeah, that's an addendum and a weak one at that; although it calls for the killing of American citizens to provoke a war etc.... it was rejected by Kennedy, who then fired the author of that proposal.

To me it's a distraction. There's many other "false flag" actions that were actually acted upon (GLADIO, the Gulf of Tonkin lie, the USS Liberty attempt, etc) which just don't corroborate anything about 9/11 and can only be used as background confirmation of government willingness to create terror... in the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

At the end of the day, there is no justification for it. The only thing that happened because of 9/11 was the US invading Afghanistan, which is an utterly worthless country.

This is just too short sighted on your part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Oil? Why would the US go to war for oil? The US gets most of it's oil from.... Cananda. Oh, and Mexico.

You're completely ignoring the relationships between world oil suppliers and US interests, politics and military interests. You forget the relationships between the US and Saudi Arabian oil, BCCI, and many more corporate interests.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The Middle East has a large percentage of the world's oil reserves, but the US gets most of it's oil from elsewhere.

You're right but the US and US corporate interests have a huge interest in world oil distribution as well as the fact that these countries control the price of oil...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

And again... WTC7 didn't "tip over". It collapsed. In fact, it collapsed in stages.

It didn't collapse in stages. It fell smoothly through its entire structural support system as though it didn't exist.

MediaGuy · 09-02-2011, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

WT7 did not fall at free fall speed for the whole try. This is in the NIST report that you included in your post, but, Even if it did, or even if it did for a short time, this is not proof that it was a controlled demolition. It might look like it, but it's not absolute proof.

Just because WT7 looked like it fell straight down, does not mean that it did. We saw only 1 or 2 angles of the collapse. The cameras were also very far away reducing the amount of detail that could be scene. There is no way, from the views that have been presented, that anyone except the close minded could assume that the building fell in a straight line.

There were multiple angles of the fall of the building.

Even if the building fell at freefall for one second, it would be suspicious - but it fell for over 2 seconds. The rest was at near freefall. Nothing causes this except sudden, dramatic removal of all support around the perimiter and support and core.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

And again, if it it fall completely straight, it does not mean that it was a controlled demolition.

Unless god opened a hole beneath it or it was a mathematically improbable one-time occurrence, which it wasn't it occurred 3 times that day, it can only mean there were other methods used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

It is time though to accept the facts and to stop paying any attention to the lunatics out there who believe in something that simply has not been proven to exist.

Uh... how has the 9/11 commission or the NIST investigation brought any facts? How has the FBI brought any facts? Really... just post them since they're "factual"..

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

A "Rational person" would NOT think that this or any other building was "brought down for security reasons". This is basic conspiracy theorists nonsense. This has been the basis of the argument for every Truther out there.

Actually that's full of shit. The "security reasons" destruction rationale is not endorsed by any rational "truther" - it is not a basic belief of any conspiracy theorist or truther, unless they are the absolute fringe.

Most "truthers" disbelieve the official version, and would like a forensic examination of the event, which hasn't happened yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Destroying a building is a very ineffcient way to destroy information - so much of it would still be left behind, as anyone could plainly see by all of the paper floating around after WTC 1&2. No "Rational" person would ever agree with such a ridiculous claim.

Actually the vaults of the CIA, SEC etc which were beneath the WTC were found and photographed empty. The photos were initially released, but then suppressed. The photographer was accused of his wife's murder/suicide, and he had to escape to South America.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Actually, there have been endless rational explanations regarding building 7.

Really? Can you link or quote some?

:D

DBS.US · 09-02-2011, 06:51 PM

If there is nothing to hind why are they hiding everything?

Overload · 09-02-2011, 07:33 PM

i have just one single question ... why has all rubble been shipped to china BEFORE any examination took place? THAT really nags me ...

MediaGuy · 09-03-2011, 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overload

i have just one single question ... why has all rubble been shipped to china BEFORE any examination took place? THAT really nags me ...

And why were all the dump trucks ready to pick up the refuse before the crashes, and why were the so-called "students" who were celebrating and high-fiving in front of the burning buildings, taking snapshots, allowed to return to Israel, where they had served more than just standard military duty?

So many whys...

wehateporn · 09-03-2011, 04:32 AM

Very surprised to see some of this information appearing on the mainstream

scottybuzz · 09-03-2011, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

And why were all the dump trucks ready to pick up the refuse before the crashes, and why were the so-called "students" who were celebrating and high-fiving in front of the burning buildings, taking snapshots, allowed to return to Israel, where they had served more than just standard military duty?

So many whys...

oh yes because who ever planned the most intricate operation on the planet even thought of dump trucks too

MediaGuy · 09-03-2011, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottybuzz

oh yes because who ever planned the most intricate operation on the planet even thought of dump trucks too

Well find a reason or some pre-existing situation that required all those removal vehicles to be there, and then you can have your

If you can't (and from research you won't) why don't you waste your time looking up some of the info in this thread instead of posting lols...

MediaGuy · 09-03-2011, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wehateporn

Very surprised to see some of this information appearing on the mainstream

Actually that stuff about the other van, explosives, Israeli "students" etc. was only shown once and then replaced in the mainstream media by the official myths, including the "United 93" story... all sad.

porno jew · 09-03-2011, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

And why were all the dump trucks ready to pick up the refuse before the crashes

link? proof?

MediaGuy · 09-03-2011, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

link? proof?

From

:D

porno jew · 09-03-2011, 02:06 PM

lol nice "proof." you are a credulous simpleton.

MediaGuy · 09-03-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

lol nice "proof." you are a credulous simpleton.

The first clip was taken minutes after building 7 collapsed; the second incorporates it. This is apart from he 120 trucks Guilliani was talking about the next morning.

It's a small thing, but just another of the hundreds of "small things" that make up the unusual circumstances of 9/11.

They could have been part of the half-dozen exercises being coincidentally run that day by NORAD and the military... just sayin'

:D

08-22-2011, 02:40 AM	#101
~Ray visit hardlinks.org Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Las Vegas , Nv >>> [email protected] or icq 94994627 anytime Posts: 18,362	hundo __________________ Adult Backlinks for Adult Websites - Testimonials Available

09-02-2011, 06:51 PM	#106
DBS.US Geo Cities Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: North Captiva Island, Florida USA Posts: 11,828	If there is nothing to hind why are they hiding everything? __________________ Make a Free Chaturbate White Label site in 34 minutes and be making money tonight

09-02-2011, 07:33 PM	#107
Overload Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Beck's City, North Teutonia Posts: 3,185	i have just one single question ... why has all rubble been shipped to china BEFORE any examination took place? THAT really nags me ... __________________ There aren't enough faces and palms on this planet for an appropriate reaction to religion.

09-03-2011, 04:32 AM	#109
wehateporn Promoting Debate on GFY Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,173	Very surprised to see some of this information appearing on the mainstream __________________ Sexy Girls Teasing

09-03-2011, 02:06 PM	#115
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	lol nice "proof." you are a credulous simpleton.