by JimmyPage 182 Replies latest jw friends
How does not being able to explain how the bombs got in there, or why the dogs didn't sniff them out, make the building's owner admitting to controlled demolition a moot point, MrFreeze?
Besides, I already told you that the security people witnessed an "army of engineers" going in and out of the buildings the entire weekend before 911, and that the dogs were removed the Thursday before. What do you think they were doing, MrFreeze?
ProdigalSon, nothing and I mean nothing will convince the unbelievers that the WTC was purposely exploded, nothing. Those who are adamant about their opinions will say anything to save face, explosions were cause by match sticks not highly detonated devices. Again I say, the firemen heard explosions on the bottom floors. I guess these guys were dreaming. Yes, lets save face.
1975
Because if you can't prove bombs were put in the buildings, there can't be a controlled demolition. I already told you ProdigalSon, you can't rig a building of that size to be demolished in that short of a time period. It's IMPOSSIBLE! Even on buildings half that size that are ABANDONED COMPLETELY, it would take months.
I'll say it one more time then I'm done with this. The building's owner admitted the building was wired. Since you're adamant that the buildings couldn't be wired in a day, and Silverstein admitted it was pulled, then the building was wired beforehand. If Building 7 was wired beforehand, then so were the other two towers. I think that's pretty much a slam dunk. 911 was planned in advance. Period.
I've never used the word before, but you're bordering on troll, and I'm going to bed.
Peace.
Yeah but if it was wired beforehand dogs would have sniffed them out. As regards Silverstein and his "pull" comment, "pull it" is not a term used for controlled demolition. Its a term used for pulling a building down with cables. Not to mention, do you really think Silverstein would be that stupid to admit to demolishing his own building on tv? It wasn't a slip of the tongue. A man who gets where he got doesnt make mistakes like that. There is plenty of firefighters who were filmed before the collapse saying they were concerned about the stability of the building and that they were going to pull out.
Hey Jimmy, what about the guy you bought your house from? Mr. Crowley?
What is your opinion regarding this ? Do you feel that there might be something to it?
http://letsrollforums.com/barbara-olson-9-11-t20525.html?s=7f7c0d9b06a1bf4c96deb81fa371e475&
Bangalore
Crowley was not behind the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers, no.
But I'm quite certain a youtube video could quickly be concocted to "prove" that he was.
The video evidence being pointed to in order to support controlled demolition of Building 7 is not conclusive proof of such. To interpret it uncomprimisingly as definitive proof does not help the argument of conspiratory theorists, because it is there for all to assess and analyse
It must be understood that the energy being released from the moment of collapse is enormous. Much greater than the energy supplied by explosions which merely initiate collapse. There are certain characteristics displayed by the collapse of very large and heavy high rise buildings not always obvious with smaller demolitions.
One very important characteristic is the difficulty in a large heavy building to divert from the vertical . . . even uneven structual failure initiates a vertical descent over the building footprint when weight and gravity interact. This gives the impression of controlled demolition but it's not. The structual failure point initiates rapid consequent failure on other areas where stress is rapidly increased, bringing about an evening effect and thus vertical descent. Building 7 was badly damaged in the lower floors. Eventual structual failure would have "evened out" extremely quickly on account of the extreme weight and energy stored in the floors above. The energy being released would have been accompanied by extremely loud explosive type noises . . . momentarily before movement became obvious.
The evidence of structual failure shown in the sagging roof line on building 7 points to lower floor failure. Further, controlled demolition seldom involves techniques such as timed explosions running up one side of the building only. This is more characteristic of air compression through an elevator shaft or stairwell. The evidence is available for all to see . . . it's all about interpretation. On the visual evidence ALONE, I can see no evidence of controlled demolition of Building 7. Sorry if I'm being repetitive . . . but conspiracy or not . . . the video evidence does not support it IMO.
As regards Silverstein and his "pull" comment, "pull it" is not a term used for controlled demolition. Its a term used for pulling a building down with cables.
LOL. What kind of cables can pull down a steel building at free-fall speed? Straight down into its own footprint? LOL and Double LOL. This is really amusing. Show us proof of these alleged cables.
Not to mention, do you really think Silverstein would be that stupid to admit to demolishing his own building on tv? It wasn't a slip of the tongue. A man who gets where he got doesnt make mistakes like that.
I believe you're right, and my theory is that Silverstein was letting his "friends" know that he better get what's coming to him from the insurance policy, otherwise there might be more slips of the tongue. I believe the comment was calculated and he knew he could get away with it because the whole gang considers themselves untouchable. What you see from him in the video is outright arrogance.
Seriously though, until you can come up with something better than pulling the building down with cables, there's no sense in wasting any more of my time with this. The laws of physics alone are proof that the buildings were wired, and the video shows a building being brought down by controlled demolition. In the case of the main towers, something much more than conventional weapons were used. Buildings of this size have NEVER been demolished, but you're certain that it could never be done in less than two weeks. I guess there's no arguing with that, because there's no way to prove you wrong. You win, and our government is squeaky clean and never tells any lies.
If you don't wanna see it, nothing will make you see it. One day you'll find out you fought tooth and nail to protect a lie so obvious that it will be embarassing. I have complete confidence in full disclosure.... sooner or later, and I think sooner.
By the way, great link Bangalore.
