911 Truth on C-SPAN tonight! - Page 5 - GoFuckYourself.com

notabook · 07-30-2006, 03:45 PM

200? or is it?

uno · 07-30-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chshkt

what about 30 days? the truth is out there!

Did The Secret change your life?

FetishTom · 07-30-2006, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

*YAWNS* One last time for you buddy, think about this LOGICALLY: There in the history of MANKIND during which we?ve had MODERN SKYSCRAPERS, there have been ZERO SKYSCRAPERS destroyed due to intense FIRE. Many FIRES have burned longer than the one in Building #7 (burned for 7 hours or so) for periods of DAYS, buildings TALLER than #7 as well. Considering that everything STRUCTUAL ENGINEERS tell us as well, a building cannot fall from FIRE ALONE. This essentially means that a modern skyscraper will NEVER FALL TO FIRE DAMAGE. Now using logic, what is the most likely event here? That a building that suffered slight damage and burned for a mere 7 hours fell to the ground, considering other buildings have suffered greater damage and burned for over a day and STILL structurally sound, or that it was otherwise setup in such a way to be taken down by a controlled group. Yeah, I thought so. You keep spewing your bullshit Mr. Oreilly, I?m sure someone somewhere is buying the fucking shit coming out of your faggoty mouth.

I just knew you would be back!

Madrid fire services have just announced that the 99 percent of the fire which has gutted one of Spanish capital's tallest buildings has been put out. Firemen have been working all day to try and control Madrid's biggest ever fire. The Windsor building is in the heart of Madrid's commercial and banking center, and it has been destroyed by the fire.

Hot damn a modern skyscraper destroyed by fire. Would you credit it huh? Now I think the problem is you just saw this statement:

"Fires do not destroy skyscrapers."

on the AttackonAmerica website and swallowed it whole and then spewed it out over everyone without actually checking whether it was true or not. Now you did didn't you? This is very, very bad and not a little dumb

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Yes we have already been through this Tom, you do seem to have an explanation though: MAGIC destroyed Building #7. Awesome. I love that explanation, you should totally go work for Penn&Teller, I hear they need a third wheel that will explain things using your warped view of what logic is. Oh wait, that?s the Bush Administration my bad. QUICK TOM! GO APPLY! They certainly need more people willing to lie for them! HURRY THE JOB MAY BE FILLED SOON!!! Moron.

Again going with Fire as the answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Dear tommy boy, are you a fucking moron or do you just play one on TV? Just checking. Many things in science are not observable visually as in up close and personal ? instead, we have working theories and based on spectrums of light we can come to certain conclusions. Unlike you who evidently believes that magic governs our world and that ?anything is possible? lmao.

Working theories and certain conclusions are fine. Until they are disproved by events. Let me think of an example. Hmm. Oh I know. Some people hold the theory that modern skyscrapers cannot be destroyed by fire but, and alas, this has been proven to be absolute drivel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

It explains I have flatulence. Not really a lot but coming from someone who believes in magic that?s hardly surprising you would think that way.

It does explain you have flatulence. Thank you for sharing. Have you been to Madrid?

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Tom ? I know your reading comprehension skills are fairly bad, but by ignoring that paragraph you missed out on a lot. I?ll summarize one more time and even capitalize it and bold it for you since you are such a duckweed: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A STEEL SKYSCRAPER TO BE DESTROYED BY FIRE ALONE BASED ON FACTUAL DATA, IN WHICH EVEN THE FEMA COMMISIONED STUDY AGREED WITH. There ya go tommy boy, hope that helped you out! And remember I wasn?t yelling either just in case you want to try and derail the thread that way. =)

Unless it is based in Madrid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

See previous comments on why you are such a fucking idiotic douche bag and should really get a job at the BBB (Bush Butt Buddies).

Is the job based in Madrid?

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Ok Tom: Let?s try this one more time for you and your reading disability. In our modern history we?ve had hundreds of MODERN SKYSCRAPERS catch on fire. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM stood afterwards. Not a ONE was structurally compromised. Based on this, structural engineers were able to gather data to PROVE without a SHADOW OF A DOUBT that a modern STEEL SKYSCRAPER can NOT fall because of fire damage alone.

Unless it is based in Madrid

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Garma is a giant turtle, yes that?s correct. You didn?t know who Gamara was so I tried to enlighten you, but with you being a faggotty fuck fuck I guess it was in vain eh?

Unless it is based in Madrid. Oh ok I know that this has nothing to do with giant turtles I just like saying it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Looks like you agree on this one tom tom that because of their unsubstantiated claims that that leaves way for an alternative method to which the building was destroyed rather than by fire and slight structural damage. Can you think of another way to bring down a building my dear faggot? Let?s see? a planned demolition perhaps faggy-one-Kenobi? Glad this is another issue you have conceded with, thanks pal!

Wait for it...

...all together now...

...unless it is based in Madrid!

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

DUDE keep your eyes off my JUNK, that?s the last time I?m warning you or I swear to god I will take away all of your Christina Aguilera CD?s.

I have no idea. Don't ask. Its just babble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Lmao, you go ahead and DISGRACE THEIR MEMORIES by saying that a group of people with BOX-CUTTERS managed to subdue an ENTIRE PLANE. God damn Bill Oreilly you are fucking SICK in the HEAD.

This from the man who sneered at their fate. Go figure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Since you can?t debunk shit using your so-called ?logic?, how about trying factual data? How about finding one modern skyscraper in history that has fell to fire? Oh yeah that?s right Tom, let me save you the trouble: THERE ARE NONE. Keep reaching for the stars tommy boy.

Drum roll please maestro. Ladies and Gentlemen I present a variation on a much used phrase...

...There's one in Madrid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Are you a stupid mother fucking moron Tommy Boy? Wait, scratch that, I already asked that and you gave me a answer with your useless drivel miles ago. You are the one who believes in magic and that everything is possible. You are the one that keeps on hammering about ?Just because a MODERN SKYSCRAPER has NEVER FALLEN due TO INTENSE FIRE that doesn?t mean it can?t lmao I so smart tee-hee?.

I will admit I am incredibly smart. Which is annoying to those that are not quite as smart such as your goodself. oh and...

...Madrid!

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

It?s the same thing as you saying: ?Just because a GIANT MARTIAN COCK has NEVER BEEN SEEN doesn?t mean that it can?t exist LMAO.?. Your analogies really need some work there little buddy.

Giant turtles now giant alien cocks. Mucho nutcase. This man be crazzee. My name is Juan and I am from Madrid

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Read it twice, you say the same thing. You try to compare religion to conspiracy theories and I shoot it down quicker than the US Government should have shot down the planes full of box-cutter wielding terrorists (lmao). When I call you on it you respond and clearly show the difference yourself, that millions have died to religion and relatively none to conspiracies, which clearly prove that they are nothing alike. I love shooting down your shit tommy boy? I really do

Religion=conspiracy theories. The new age religion is conspiracy, giant lizards (or turtles), the illuminati and things that go bump in the night. And dude my shit is so unthreatened by your poor shooting!

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Negatory means NO buddy. Though fuck? now that I think about it why did I expect you to know that? Sorry about that Tommy, I?ll say it in words you can understand: Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrr NOoooo I like PIE and PUDDDDING deeeeeeeeeeeeeeer. That better little fella?

No speak English senor. I am from Madrid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Again, reaching here buddy. You said AND OTHERS, and I said AND OTHERS just to try and keep you up to pace. If you had said people, the AND OTHERS would have never popped up; regardless if you want I could give you some tissues, I know you have a lot of jerking off to do tonight over this thread ;)

Do you speak English?

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Lmao, nice questioning there faggot, you learn that in second grade? ?You seem to enjoy looking stupid!? so if I try to respond and say ?No I don?t? it still implies I?m stupid, if I say yes then it does. So how about I use your great second grade bullshit right back at you: ?You seem to enjoy being a faggot!?. OooOoooo BURN. Seriously Tommy Boy, you should really stop posting. The more you post the more people can see the giant dickhead that you really are. Giant dickhead? lmao, I bet that just got you hard little buddy

And from giant turtles through giant alien cocks we end on giant dickheads!. Thank you all you have been a wonderful audience and I have enjoyed my time on this thread immensely. I have to go as I have a plane to catch to...

...Madrid!

chshkt · 07-30-2006, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uno

Did The Secret change your life?

I haven't seen it yet... but there are some other very interesting secrets now...

chshkt · 07-30-2006, 04:30 PM

Shankz · 07-30-2006, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chshkt

I haven't seen it yet... but there are some other very interesting secrets now...

Very interesting pic!

chshkt · 07-30-2006, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

Unless it is based in Madrid.

lol you can't prove shit, because you know shit especially for 9/11. repeating won't help you.

This is the Madrid skyscraper fire after burning 10 hours!

This the WTC after burning couple of hours:

The North Tower was hit by Flight 11 at 8:46. It collapses in 10:28 am.

1988
The First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3 1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower (it did not collapse)

1991
The One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which burned out of control for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38 floor building; (it did not collapse)

2004
The Caracas fire, which burned out of control for 17 hours in Venezuela?s
highest skyscraper, by which time all floors from the 34th to the top had been burned. (it did not collapse)

2005
The Madrid, 32-story Windsor Tower fire, which burned out of control for over 10 hours, and was not extinguished for over 24 hours. (it did not collapse)

? Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-toyellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature.

? Building WTC7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which means, Jones says, that the steel and concrete support had to be simply knocked out of the way. "Explosive demolitions are like that," he said. "It doesn't fit the model of the fire-induced pancake collapse."

? No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse, he says.

? Jones points to a recent article in the journal New Civil Engineering that says WTC disaster investigators at NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology) "are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers."

notabook · 07-30-2006, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

I just knew you would be back!

Madrid fire services have just announced that the 99 percent of the fire which has gutted one of Spanish capital's tallest buildings has been put out. Firemen have been working all day to try and control Madrid's biggest ever fire. The Windsor building is in the heart of Madrid's commercial and banking center, and it has been destroyed by the fire.

Hot damn a modern skyscraper destroyed by fire. Would you credit it huh? Now I think the problem is you just saw this statement:

"Fires do not destroy skyscrapers."

on the AttackonAmerica website and swallowed it whole and then spewed it out over everyone without actually checking whether it was true or not. Now you did didn't you? This is very, very bad and not a little dumb

Ok Tommy? now this is going to hurt you way more than it hurts me. Actually it?ll probably make you cry. Here?s the thing Tommy: The skyscraper was not destroyed. OMG no, please don?t start rambling quite yet. You see tom tom, you should have really re-read prior to posting that. You really should have. And here we go?

THE SKYSCRAPER DID NOT COLLAPSE you STUPID MOTHER FUCKING MORONIC FOOL. DID YOU EVEN READ THAT??? DID YOU MORONIC TOM???? Do you NOT UNDERSTAND THIS AT ALL? Building #7 COLLAPSED TO THE FUCKING GROUND. IT COLLAPSED! THE MADRID BUILDING DID NOT COLLAPSE YOU FUCKING MORON.

Now that we have the unpleasantries out of the way, I never left. I went to work. You know, a job. Ya dig faggot?

Just a quote for your stupid fucking moronic ass:
"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire."

That?s right, it withstood after twenty six hours, it DID NOT COLLAPSE. So lie more out your ass you gay mother fucker. Click the link below, quote is right near the top if YOU CAN READ THIS YOU STUPID CUNT.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

Again going with Fire as the answer.

Read my above post you stupid cunt. Fire cannot destroy a modern skyscraper. You lied and said the Madrid building was destroyed by fire which simply isn?t true. The link again, just for you little tommy boy since you have that whole reading problem:

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

It clearly states that the Madrid building which you were so proud and so sure of that fell to fire:
"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
Unlike building #7 which COLLAPSED TO THE MOTHER FUCKING ROUND. So again, I hope everyone by now knows what a total stupid fucking asshat you are and that you clearly have a READING DISABILITY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

Working theories and certain conclusions are fine. Until they are disproved by events. Let me think of an example. Hmm. Oh I know. Some people hold the theory that modern skyscrapers cannot be destroyed by fire but, and alas, this has been proven to be absolute drivel.

Dude, I love you so much now that you?ve totally been shot down. You lied about the Madrid skyscraper? well let me rephrase that. You didn?t lie but you just didn?t read it either. Man I love having fun with you tommy boy, I?ll keep doing quotes for you to just show what a complete dipshit moron you really are:
"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
Ah? it?s great isn?t it tommy? One more time just for you little buddy.
"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

It does explain you have flatulence. Thank you for sharing. Have you been to Madrid?

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
Mmmmm? tommy? your tears sustain me!
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

Unless it is based in Madrid.

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
omg I LOVE your tears Tommy!
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

Is the job based in Madrid?

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
Tommy, please, cry more, it turns me on when my bitches cry!
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

Unless it is based in Madrid

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
You know that whole biggest douche in the universe award? You are totally nominated for it pal.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

Unless it is based in Madrid. Oh ok I know that this has nothing to do with giant turtles I just like saying it.

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
As for Gamara, fuck off. He?s a hero to Japanese kids everywhere.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

Wait for it...

...all together now...

...unless it is based in Madrid!

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
This has been so much fun destroying you Tommy... you just don't know how big the smile is on my face.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

I have no idea. Don't ask. Its just babble.

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
Err.. oh wait I didn?t have to post it that time. Oh well, your still a fag so I pasted it again just for you and your reading disability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

This from the man who sneered at their fate. Go figure.

*yawns* Not going to paste it. Not.
"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

Drum roll please maestro. Ladies and Gentlemen I present a variation on a much used phrase...

...There's one in Madrid.

O rly?
"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

I will admit I am incredibly smart. Which is annoying to those that are not quite as smart such as your goodself. oh and...

...Madrid!

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
Tommy, you made this so easy for me? I?m truly happy that you did so. Your stupidity has given me such happiness Tommy.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

Giant turtles now giant alien cocks. Mucho nutcase. This man be crazzee. My name is Juan and I am from Madrid

You are the one who said that anything is possible so thusly you believe in magic. Also
"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

Religion=conspiracy theories. The new age religion is conspiracy, giant lizards (or turtles), the illuminati and things that go bump in the night. And dude my shit is so unthreatened by your poor shooting!

Eh, not worth respond to. Your whole ranting and rambling was based on the assumption that the skyscraper was destroyed in Madrid. It wasn?t. Man? I? I can?t believe you made this so easy for me Tommy. If you had just re-read you would have probably saw the error of your ways. Instead you went ahead and posted thinking you were going to accomplish something? instead:
"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Oh? and HAHAHAHA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

No speak English senor. I am from Madrid.

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer Tommy deeeeeeeeeeeeeer Building deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer Not deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer Destroyed diiiirrddiiiideepy der der.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

Do you speak English?

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
Sorry tom tom, I just love shoving this down your throat. Like my cock. LOL
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

And from giant turtles through giant alien cocks we end on giant dickheads!. Thank you all you have been a wonderful audience and I have enjoyed my time on this thread immensely. I have to go as I have a plane to catch to...

...Madrid!

Don?t hit any tall buildings.

Oh and just in case anyone missed it:
Tommy lied and said that the Madrid skyscraper was destroyed by fire. Guess what? Just another lie by this raving lunatic.
"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Thanks tommy for giving me and everyone else such a great laugh!

notabook · 07-30-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chshkt

lol you can't prove shit, because you know shit especially for 9/11. repeating won't help you.

This is the Madrid skyscraper fire after burning 10 hours!

Damn you! I spent 15 minutes typing up all my shit to respond to him and you beat me >_< Oh well :P At least others know that the moron is full of shit.

2HousePlague · 07-30-2006, 04:49 PM

Plus, jet fuel burns a lot hotter and more intensely than the combustibles involved in those other non-collapses.

2hp

Shankz · 07-30-2006, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2HousePlague

Plus, jet fuel burns a lot hotter and more intensely than the combustibles involved in those other non-collapses.

2hp

How did jet fuel get in building 7?

2HousePlague · 07-30-2006, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shankz

How did jet fuel get in building 7?

I have no idea. But the list of possible explanations is rather short.

2hp

chshkt · 07-30-2006, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Damn you! I spent 15 minutes typing up all my shit to respond to him and you beat me >_< Oh well :P At least others know that the moron is full of shit.

hahaha gotcha with one minute... you'll have to type faster

Shankz · 07-30-2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2HousePlague

I have no idea. But the list of possible explanations is rather short.

2hp

Are you saying it was planted before-hand? Jet fuel wouldn't be the best way to bring down a building imo. But I'm no expert.

chshkt · 07-30-2006, 04:56 PM

The melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it.

Not only that but also free fall.

chshkt · 07-30-2006, 04:58 PM

The explosives have been inside all the time since it was build... as with all big skyscrapers... so they can pull them anytime. Or not :D

2HousePlague · 07-30-2006, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shankz

Are you saying it was planted before-hand? Jet fuel wouldn't be the best way to bring down a building imo. But I'm no expert.

lol -- I'm saying I have no idea. I was living in Berkeley on 9/11. But I know the area well, for having worked in Tower 2 (99th floor) from 1993 to 1996. All the WTC complex buildings were pretty close. Each tower weighed 500,000 tons. In terms of the lateral force exerted against surrounding buildings, the mere collapse of the tower would have been like a very large explosion in it's own right. We're talking about material and air pressure. It is PLAUSIBLE this was enough to bring 7 down.

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/new...apse/flash.htm

2hp

Shankz · 07-30-2006, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2HousePlague

lol -- I'm saying I have no idea. I was living in Berkeley on 9/11. But I know the area well, for having worked in Tower 2 (99th floor) from 1993 to 1996. All the WTC complex buildings were pretty close. Each tower weighed 500,000 tons. In terms of the lateral force exerted against surrounding buildings, the mere collapse of the tower would have been like a very large explosion in it's own right. We're talking about material and air pressure. It is PLAUSIBLE this was enough to bring 7 down.

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/new...apse/flash.htm

2hp

So now you're saying air pressure brought down the building? I don't mean to go against any theories or anything, but its just not something I've heard before. Did FEMA bring that up during its investigation? Air pressure?

Shankz · 07-30-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chshkt

The explosives have been inside all the time since it was build... as with all big skyscrapers... so they can pull them anytime. Or not :D

I don't think I'm reading that right. Are you saying all big skyscrapers are built with explosives so they can be demolished at any time? In other fires where buildings are badly damaged they have to spend millions to "bring them down" with explosives they bring in.

chshkt · 07-30-2006, 05:11 PM

this is absurd... the owner of WTC7 even admitted that THEY HAD TO PULL IT

WTC OWNER ADMITS TO CONTROLLED DEMOLITION OF BUILDING SEVEN:
There is an incredibly self-incriminating video interview with Larry Silverstein wherein he stated that he
decided Building Seven would have to be ?pulled? to prevent any further loss of life, and so they ?pulled
it?. Pulling a structure is common industry terminology for a controlled demolition. A copy of this
interview video available on request. This ?pulled? 47-story building then collapsed exactly as WTC1
and WTC2 had. Mr. Silverstein has since refused to comment on this issue.

TRANSCRIPT:
?I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander,
telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain
the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the
smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull
and we watched the building collapse.?
Video Clip: www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV
- Larry Silverstein
- CEO Silverstein Properties, Inc.

chshkt · 07-30-2006, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shankz

I don't think I'm reading that right. Are you saying all big skyscrapers are built with explosives so they can be demolished at any time? In other fires where buildings are badly damaged they have to spend millions to "bring them down" with explosives they bring in.

I don't know. I have just read about that somewhere.

2HousePlague · 07-30-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shankz

So now you're saying air pressure brought down the building? I don't mean to go against any theories or anything, but its just not something I've heard before. Did FEMA bring that up during its investigation? Air pressure?

I haven't spent very much time conducting personal research, so I won't be anywhere near as conversant in the facts as others in this thread. I have seen the 2 hour video on Google, and found it very compelling. For example, the whole Pentagon story is rotten to the core. But what do I know, I have never been to the Pentagon. So I never speculate unless I have at least some basis. Accordingly, my comments on this subject will be limited to 1) Things upon which I am able to speculate because I worked there, and 2) Things I would know for beign a physicist. On the propaganda, I'm neutral.

2hp

chshkt · 07-30-2006, 05:17 PM

"The truth is that we do not know the truth. And we should."

Shankz · 07-30-2006, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chshkt

this is absurd... the owner of WTC7 even admitted that THEY HAD TO PULL IT

Yeah, I saw that video for the first time today. As someone who hasn't decided what to believe happened, I have to wonder what the "other side" has to say about those statements. Was he just wrong? Or was he talking about pulling the firemen out? Though, if the latter he sure made a hell of a foul-up with his wording.

Shankz · 07-30-2006, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chshkt

"The truth is that we do not know the truth. And we should."

Great point! So true about many things too. I wish the media actually cared about "the truth" and not just ratings and money. We've seen with the big corporate media stations (CNN, Fox, etc.) that they simply will ignore something if it threatens them financially, or if they are pressured by their corporate owners. You know you can't trust the government to be honest. They are incompetent for one, and they get caught in lies all the time. Its just something governments do all around the world. The US is certainly no exception, unfortunately.

chshkt · 07-30-2006, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shankz

Yeah, I saw that video for the first time today. As someone who hasn't decided what to believe happened, I have to wonder what the "other side" has to say about those statements. Was he just wrong? Or was he talking about pulling the firemen out? Though, if the latter he sure made a hell of a foul-up with his wording.

or he's just in?

The lease of WTC1 and WTC2 was purchased by Larry Silverstein, an extremely savvy NYC real estate mogul, three months before the attack for a cost of 3.2 billion to be paid to the NYC Port Authority over 99 years. Silverstein was the original owner of WTC7, and is the current owner of the soon to be completed Building 7.

LEASING THE WTC COMPLEX SHOULD HAVE BEEN A FINANCIAL DISASTER:
Larry Silverstein leased this property even though it was well known within the industry that the WTC1 and WTC2 had been constructed with asbestos fire retardant coating on the internal steel structure. Asbestos coated all columns up to the 64th floors, only switching to a less effective and non-toxic product in 1971 when New York City banned the use of asbestos as a building material. Asbestos is now known to be an extremely toxic carcinogen, and would eventually have to have been remediated at a cost that would surely have exceeded the buildings resale value.

HOWEVER, LEASING THE WTC COMPLEX BECAME A FINANCIAL WINDFALL:
After signing the lease, Larry Silverstein promptly increased the insurance on these buildings to $7.2 billion; double their purchase price prior to the attack. After their destruction, the potential white elephant complex became an instant double-your-money windfall to the tune of a 3.5 billion in pure profit to Silverstein.

A wise sage once said, always follow the money trail.

MediaGuy · 07-30-2006, 05:32 PM

The only problem being that you can't decide to "pull" a building in a day like that, especially not in a few hours.

It takes a week two weeks depending on the size of the building and complexity of the infrastructure.

When you see actual footage of earthquakes, floods, landslides and bombs, missiles, etc... hitting big buildings - no one side ever weakens at the same time as the others. One side weakens, and the whole thing topples, tips over so to speak. So if the world trade center toppled, you would have tens of thousands of people crushed, and a lot more damage, all the way to the harbor.

The thing about those world trade center buildings going down the way they did is that the terrorists had to be able to get into the buildings and set up all kinds of special metal-cutting bombs in strategic locations and set them to blow at very precise intervals. Otherwise those 100 story buildings and the other one that wasn't even hit by a plane, could NEVER have gone down so straight.

OR - ever think of this? - the buildings were BUILT to blow and fall into their own footprints IN CASE their very special flexible structures failed due to attack, stress or heat damage.

I mean, unless they shut down the WTC for a month to wire the place with explosives, i don't see how else it could be done.

2HousePlague · 07-30-2006, 05:33 PM

Must admit, as described above, there was ample financial motive.

2hp

Shankz · 07-30-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chshkt

After signing the lease, Larry Silverstein promptly increased the insurance on these buildings to $7.2 billion; double their purchase price prior to the attack. After their destruction, the potential white elephant complex became an instant double-your-money windfall to the tune of a 3.5 billion in pure profit to Silverstein.

I didn't consider insurance scam before. If it was really that much in profit... damn.

chshkt · 07-30-2006, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shankz

I didn't consider insurance scam before. If it was really that much in profit... damn.

and that is just the tiny tip of the iceberg...

just look at the oil prices...

chshkt · 07-30-2006, 05:38 PM

Larry Silverstein

Shankz · 07-30-2006, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

The thing about those world trade center buildings going down the way they did is that the terrorists had to be able to get into the buildings and set up all kinds of special metal-cutting bombs in strategic locations and set them to blow at very precise intervals. Otherwise those 100 story buildings and the other one that wasn't even hit by a plane, could NEVER have gone down so straight.
...
I mean, unless they shut down the WTC for a month to wire the place with explosives, i don't see how else it could be done.

Very interesting stuff. I haven't been to see the WTC before, but with buildings that big you gotta imagine service entrances, service elevators, etc. I imagine they bring in tons of huge boxes, materials, desks, etc. to occupy new offices. Not to mention, I read they had just finished rennovating like a whole floor on Tower 7, and re-inforcing the floor the mayor set up to be his command center. Would anyone know the difference between guys bringing in explosives and guys bringing in boxes, desks, or building supplies? Something to think about.

Phoenix · 07-30-2006, 05:39 PM

cant believe i missed this thread

chshkt · 07-30-2006, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

cant believe i missed this thread

lol hi Phoenix

2HousePlague · 07-30-2006, 05:42 PM

Here's a world trade center panorama I took at ground zero in Summer 04.

2hp

chshkt · 07-30-2006, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2HousePlague

Here's a world trade center panorama I took at ground zero in Summer 04.

2hp

cute girl

Shankz · 07-30-2006, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shankz

Who benefited from 9-11?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist (I just lost half the audience), not someone who blindly believes whatever I'm told by the media or the government. There are crazy people on both sides. There are people who need to believe in some massive conspiracy (the so-called "conspiracy nuts") and people who want to believe the government would never lie to them (just as crazy). The media should not be believed or disbelieved as it is just a tool. I just turned on CNN minutes ago and there was a representative from Syria not answering a single question, but instead turning every "answer" into a plea for the US citizens to get our government to stop the Israeli slaughter. The media doesn't tell the truth, they simply provide a voice for those who want to talk (if it gets ratings).

Reguardless of what you believe happened and who caused it, many people, organizations, and government agencies benefited from 9/11. Just off the top of my head...

The CIA has received a massive amount of funding to nearly all departments.
Other government agencies have received increases in funding, including: Department of Defense, Homeland Security, FBI, etc.
The US government?s strength has grown considerably since 9-11 by passing such resolutions as the Patriot Act.
The contractors hired to build the new World Trade Center buildings.
US oil companies who have been able to raise prices to match OPEC prices, which have dramatically risen due to the War on Terrorism.
The president had an amazing boost in popularity, support, and influence throughout the world (which have since decreased).
Alternative energy companies and researchers.
Pakistan has received massive funding and other support in reply to its "help" with our War on Terror.
The Northern Alliance in Afganistan was put in power in Afganistan after being just a small faction for years.
Cable news companies have gained millions of viewers who have never before sat in front of the TV in fear all day.

Thats just what I can think of right now, but thats not even including the tons of people and businesses who have benefited from the war in Iraq.

Oh, just thought of a few more...

Mortuaries, Burial services, and casket companies

The average price of burial services in New Jersey (closest I could find) is $11,270.00 (http://www.ogmhognj.com/PrInfABurialW.htm).

5000 dead = $56,350,000 in burial services

2HousePlague · 07-30-2006, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chshkt

cute girl

Yeah, he she has a well-known food fetish site.

2hp

Shankz · 07-30-2006, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2HousePlague

Yeah, he she has a well-known food fetish site.

2hp

Wow thats so hot. I never knew I had a food fetish until just now!

chshkt · 07-30-2006, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2HousePlague

Yeah, he she has a well-known food fetish site.

2hp

bahahaha food fetish OMG i've just looked at the site lol

FetishTom · 07-30-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Ok Tommy? now this is going to hurt you way more than it hurts me. Actually it?ll probably make you cry. Here?s the thing Tommy: The skyscraper was not destroyed. OMG no, please don?t start rambling quite yet. You see tom tom, you should have really re-read prior to posting that. You really should have. And here we go?

THE SKYSCRAPER DID NOT COLLAPSE you STUPID MOTHER FUCKING MORONIC FOOL. DID YOU EVEN READ THAT??? DID YOU MORONIC TOM???? Do you NOT UNDERSTAND THIS AT ALL? Building #7 COLLAPSED TO THE FUCKING GROUND. IT COLLAPSED! THE MADRID BUILDING DID NOT COLLAPSE YOU FUCKING MORON.

Now that we have the unpleasantries out of the way, I never left. I went to work. You know, a job. Ya dig faggot?

Just a quote for your stupid fucking moronic ass:
"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire."

That?s right, it withstood after twenty six hours, it DID NOT COLLAPSE. So lie more out your ass you gay mother fucker. Click the link below, quote is right near the top if YOU CAN READ THIS YOU STUPID CUNT.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Read my above post you stupid cunt. Fire cannot destroy a modern skyscraper. You lied and said the Madrid building was destroyed by fire which simply isn?t true. The link again, just for you little tommy boy since you have that whole reading problem:

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

It clearly states that the Madrid building which you were so proud and so sure of that fell to fire:
"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
Unlike building #7 which COLLAPSED TO THE MOTHER FUCKING ROUND. So again, I hope everyone by now knows what a total stupid fucking asshat you are and that you clearly have a READING DISABILITY.

Actually I notice that your aggressive abuse gets worse the more your argument unravels. Ok lets take this from the top. You stated that 'no modern skyscraper has been destroyed by fire' Quote:

" the Windsor building fire in 2005, which destroyed the emblematic 28-story tower in the heart of Madrid's business district"

The skyscraper was destroyed by fire. Firefighters managed to put out the blaze and again I quote "Emergency services are now concerned about the burned building collapsing to the ground" If the blaze had gone unchecked the building would have collapsed. There are also quotes about the top 'melting like a candle' from the emergency services but we have enough to be going on with for now.

So after the fire we are left with a burnt out shell which the emergency services were concerned would collapse and which everyone is agreed has been destroyed by fire.

I mean precisely what do you think destroyed the building? Perhaps you consider a burnt out shell as not being destroyed?

Either a building is destroyed or it is not. You have stated with increasing hysteria that I could not find a modern skyscraper that has been destroyed by fire because it is impossible. So I find one destroyed by fire and cue another bout of hysteria

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Dude, I love you so much now that you?ve totally been shot down. You lied about the Madrid skyscraper? well let me rephrase that. You didn?t lie but you just didn?t read it either. Man I love having fun with you tommy boy, I?ll keep doing quotes for you to just show what a complete dipshit moron you really are:
"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
Ah? it?s great isn?t it tommy? One more time just for you little buddy.
"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "

What the entire 29 floors were left standing and intact? Just a few scorch marks which a lick of paint would cover up perhaps. No concerns about structural integrity being fataly compromised or steel columns melted into nothing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Eh, not worth respond to. Your whole ranting and rambling was based on the assumption that the skyscraper was destroyed in Madrid. It wasn?t.

Yep looks fine to me too. Does seem to be melting in the fire though. But I am sure it will be fine. No need to panic. Modern skyscrapers cannot be destroyed by fire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Oh and just in case anyone missed it:
Tommy lied and said that the Madrid skyscraper was destroyed by fire. Guess what? Just another lie by this raving lunatic.

Absolutely. If we just move a couple of pot plants around in the lobby in the morning no one will notice the burn mark on the carpets.

But back to where this all started. You said modern skyscrapers cannot be destroyed by fire. The one in Madrid was destroyed by fire.

Shankz · 07-30-2006, 06:12 PM

For those of you who think there was no conspiracy about 9-11, consider:

conspiracy: An agreement between two or more persons to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

Reguardless if you believe the government was behind it, Islamic terrorists, fundamentalists Raelians, it was a conspiracy.

Shankz · 07-30-2006, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

Firefighters managed to put out the blaze and again I quote "Emergency services are now concerned about the burned building collapsing to the ground" If the blaze had gone unchecked the building would have collapsed.

Actually from what I read, they based all that thinking on Tower #7 which happened 9-11-2001, so you can't really use that as an argument. Not to mention, the building you mentioned burned for like 29 hours. What do you mean if it had gone "unchecked"? 29 hours of burning couldn't bring it down because the fire couldn't get hot enough to melt steel. It pretty much proves something was different with Tower 7 to me unless you got something else.

FetishTom · 07-30-2006, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chshkt

lol you can't prove shit, because you know shit especially for 9/11. repeating won't help you.

This is the Madrid skyscraper fire after burning 10 hours!

This the WTC after burning couple of hours:

The North Tower was hit by Flight 11 at 8:46. It collapses in 10:28 am.

1988
The First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3 1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower (it did not collapse)

1991
The One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which burned out of control for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38 floor building; (it did not collapse)

2004
The Caracas fire, which burned out of control for 17 hours in Venezuela?s
highest skyscraper, by which time all floors from the 34th to the top had been burned. (it did not collapse)

2005
The Madrid, 32-story Windsor Tower fire, which burned out of control for over 10 hours, and was not extinguished for over 24 hours. (it did not collapse)

? Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-toyellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature.

? Building WTC7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which means, Jones says, that the steel and concrete support had to be simply knocked out of the way. "Explosive demolitions are like that," he said. "It doesn't fit the model of the fire-induced pancake collapse."

? No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse, he says.

? Jones points to a recent article in the journal New Civil Engineering that says WTC disaster investigators at NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology) "are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers."

Yep I see a skyscraper in Madrid being destroyed by fire. I also see the WTC collpasing after being hit by a plane. Pretty sure the Madrid building wasn't hit by a plane. So whats your point? And as a matter of curiousity why is it so vitally important to state upon seeing a building being destroyed by fire that it was not destroyed by fire?

And why is it conspiracy nuts always kick off by abusing someone 'You don't know shit...you're a stupid cunt and a faggot etc etc'

chshkt · 07-30-2006, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

But back to where this all started. You said modern skyscrapers cannot be destroyed by fire. The one in Madrid was destroyed by fire.

No skyscraper has COLLAPSED by fire. The one in Madrid was NOT DESTROYED but just partly damaged and burning MUCH longer than WTC:

Shankz · 07-30-2006, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

And as a matter of curiousity why is it so vitally important to state upon seeing a building being destroyed by fire that it was not destroyed by fire?

And why is it conspiracy nuts always kick off by abusing someone 'You don't know shit...you're a stupid cunt and a faggot etc etc'

I think they are simply questioning what they have been told because it doesn't "add up" or make sense. FEMA, nor the independant researchers, can't seem to be able to explain it either. According to the evidence, it doesn't seem possible the building got hot enough to "melt steel" as it has been assumed. Something else brought the building down. I don't know what happened, but until I see some kind of scientific or otherwise intelligent evidence, I assume people who know don't want us to know.

Shankz · 07-30-2006, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

And why is it conspiracy nuts always kick off by abusing someone 'You don't know shit...you're a stupid cunt and a faggot etc etc'

And why do you have to be a conspiracy nut to question the assumed truth, when there is so little evidence to support it. I am not a conspiracy nut. I don't believe in aliens. I did, however, believe in Area 51 after seeing tons of evidence about that. I was called a conspiracy nut by a teacher even. But after the government comes out and says they were lying for years, were people shocked and appauled? Did people stop trusting the government? Nope, they continued to believe everything without question and try to explain away why the government has to deceive people.

chshkt · 07-30-2006, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

Yep I see a skyscraper in Madrid being destroyed by fire. I also see the WTC collpasing after being hit by a plane. Pretty sure the Madrid building wasn't hit by a plane. So whats your point? And as a matter of curiousity why is it so vitally important to state upon seeing a building being destroyed by fire that it was not destroyed by fire?

And why is it conspiracy nuts always kick off by abusing someone 'You don't know shit...you're a stupid cunt and a faggot etc etc'

Because IT WAS NOT DESTROYED and it has not COLLAPSED WITH FREE FALL SPEED as WTC!

Repeating one false thing over and over again does not beat all the evidences that this is clearly an inside job.

FetishTom · 07-30-2006, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shankz

Actually from what I read, they based all that thinking on Tower #7 which happened 9-11-2001, so you can't really use that as an argument. Not to mention, the building you mentioned burned for like 29 hours. What do you mean if it had gone "unchecked"? 29 hours of burning couldn't bring it down because the fire couldn't get hot enough to melt steel. It pretty much proves something was different with Tower 7 to me unless you got something else.

At last a sensible comment. I understand that the Madrid fire did melt the steel support columns but the design also had concrete support which were lower down and fared better which prevented immediate collapse. The structure was declared unsafe and demolished (or is in the process of being demolished).

In essence though I simply challenged the statement that it was impossible for a modern skyscraper to be destroyed by fire yet the Madrid building was destroyed by fire.

The fact is though that the Madrid building and Tower 7 were of different height/design/construction and were subject to different trauma so comparisons between the two events are meaningless. In fact this argument is far better than screaming at me that the Madrid building was not destroyed by fire when it patently was but there you go. It adds to the fun!

kanalj · 07-30-2006, 06:38 PM

O hell, to bad I have no time to read all this now...

07-30-2006, 03:45 PM	#201
notabook Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Not a Library! Posts: 9,748	200? or is it? __________________ Last edited by notabook; 07-30-2006 at 03:47 PM..

07-30-2006, 04:30 PM	#205
chshkt Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,500	__________________ Start An Online Business, FREE!

07-30-2006, 04:49 PM	#210
2HousePlague CURATOR Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: the attic Posts: 14,572	Plus, jet fuel burns a lot hotter and more intensely than the combustibles involved in those other non-collapses. 2hp __________________ tada!

07-30-2006, 04:56 PM	#215
chshkt Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,500	The melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Not only that but also free fall. __________________ Start An Online Business, FREE!

07-30-2006, 04:58 PM	#216
chshkt Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,500	The explosives have been inside all the time since it was build... as with all big skyscrapers... so they can pull them anytime. Or not :D __________________ Start An Online Business, FREE! Last edited by chshkt; 07-30-2006 at 05:00 PM..

07-30-2006, 05:11 PM	#220
chshkt Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,500	this is absurd... the owner of WTC7 even admitted that THEY HAD TO PULL IT WTC OWNER ADMITS TO CONTROLLED DEMOLITION OF BUILDING SEVEN: There is an incredibly self-incriminating video interview with Larry Silverstein wherein he stated that he decided Building Seven would have to be ?pulled? to prevent any further loss of life, and so they ?pulled it?. Pulling a structure is common industry terminology for a controlled demolition. A copy of this interview video available on request. This ?pulled? 47-story building then collapsed exactly as WTC1 and WTC2 had. Mr. Silverstein has since refused to comment on this issue. TRANSCRIPT: ?I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.? Video Clip: www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV - Larry Silverstein - CEO Silverstein Properties, Inc. __________________ Start An Online Business, FREE!

07-30-2006, 05:17 PM	#223
chshkt Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,500	"The truth is that we do not know the truth. And we should." __________________ Start An Online Business, FREE!

07-30-2006, 05:32 PM	#227
MediaGuy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Montrealquebecanada Posts: 5,500	The only problem being that you can't decide to "pull" a building in a day like that, especially not in a few hours. It takes a week two weeks depending on the size of the building and complexity of the infrastructure. When you see actual footage of earthquakes, floods, landslides and bombs, missiles, etc... hitting big buildings - no one side ever weakens at the same time as the others. One side weakens, and the whole thing topples, tips over so to speak. So if the world trade center toppled, you would have tens of thousands of people crushed, and a lot more damage, all the way to the harbor. The thing about those world trade center buildings going down the way they did is that the terrorists had to be able to get into the buildings and set up all kinds of special metal-cutting bombs in strategic locations and set them to blow at very precise intervals. Otherwise those 100 story buildings and the other one that wasn't even hit by a plane, could NEVER have gone down so straight. OR - ever think of this? - the buildings were BUILT to blow and fall into their own footprints IN CASE their very special flexible structures failed due to attack, stress or heat damage. I mean, unless they shut down the WTC for a month to wire the place with explosives, i don't see how else it could be done. __________________ YOU Are Industry News! Press Releases: pr[at]payoutmag.com Facebook: Payout Magazine! Facebook: MIKEB! ICQ: 248843947 Skype: Mediaguy1

07-30-2006, 05:33 PM	#228
2HousePlague CURATOR Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: the attic Posts: 14,572	Must admit, as described above, there was ample financial motive. 2hp __________________ tada!

07-30-2006, 05:38 PM	#231
chshkt Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,500	Larry Silverstein __________________ Start An Online Business, FREE!

07-30-2006, 05:39 PM	#233
Phoenix BACON BACON BACON Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Poems everybody, the laddie fancies himself a poet Posts: 35,462	cant believe i missed this thread __________________ Skype Phoenixskype1 Telegram PhoenixBrad https://quantads.io

07-30-2006, 05:42 PM	#235
2HousePlague CURATOR Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: the attic Posts: 14,572	Here's a world trade center panorama I took at ground zero in Summer 04. 2hp __________________ tada!

07-30-2006, 06:12 PM	#242
Shankz Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 275	For those of you who think there was no conspiracy about 9-11, consider: conspiracy: An agreement between two or more persons to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. Reguardless if you believe the government was behind it, Islamic terrorists, fundamentalists Raelians, it was a conspiracy.

07-30-2006, 06:38 PM	#250
kanalj Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 639	O hell, to bad I have no time to read all this now... __________________ I made that back in the days!