You don't think that explosives could have been transported with out detection by elevators? by stairs? and then planted on the floors where the power was out?
Of course its possible ... But one cannot prove something occured by demonstrating that it is possible. There has to be some solid evidence that does not exist solely in the realm of possibility.
the shockwave from the first 2 building falling was registered as an earthquake as far away as virginia. several building surrounding the wtc were damaged so it's simple logic that the shock wave could collapse the building next to it and sharing the same basic foundation.
then they all would have fallen.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
Because it was an obvious slip up. I've been around enough liars to know that they often have trouble keeping their story straight. One could so easily slip up and say the wrong without even thinking about it. It happens most often when some gets too comfortable with their lie and doesn't have as much fear of being exposed anymore.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
a visual no one will ever forget...another pearl harbor
then let's look at the other angle. how much explosives would it require to implode a building of that size? tons. and in order to get the implosion; the blueprints would have to be studied and all the charges placed in the right places. this has to be exact requiring years of experience.
Because it was an obvious slip up. I've been around enough liars to know that they often have trouble keeping their story straight. One could so easily slip up and say the wrong without even thinking about it. It happens most often when some gets too comfortable with their lie and doesn't have as much fear of being exposed anymore.
just like that rumsfield quote when he said they used missles to take down the buildings.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
Of course its possible ... But one cannot prove something occured by demonstrating that it is possible. There has to be some solid evidence that does not exist solely in the realm of possibility.
Of course, thats why it up for discussion. There's often no solid evidence for many crimes. No one has claimed this was solid proof of anything...just another questionable aspect of the many to discuss.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
"Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001." -Silverstein Properties
then let's look at the other angle. how much explosives would it require to implode a building of that size? tons. and in order to get the implosion; the blueprints would have to be studied and all the charges placed in the right places. this has to be exact requiring years of experience.
Who claimed the people involved were amatuers? That would be the official position that amatuer pilots flew planes into the towers with such precision without any experience.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
That's not logic. That's an outlandish assumption. And an incorrect one.
why do some buildings fall during an earthquake while others standing next to it remain standing? height has a lot to do with it too. if it were an explosion; why didn't it blow outwards? walls fell when the weight of the floors above caused them to buckle.
why do some buildings fall during an earthquake while others standing next to it remain standing? height has a lot to do with it too.
WTC 7 is a relatively short structure in the context of an earthquake theory.
if it were an explosion; why didn't it blow outwards?
I believe the prevailing conspiracy theory is an implosion, not an explosion.
walls fell when the weight of the floors above caused them to buckle.
Actually in the case of WTC 7, it happens in reverse. The base of the building became unstable from fires and falling debris. And when you remove the base, the rest collapses.
No one. The ultimate failure of the theory is that no one can make any claims about "the people involved" other than words like "they" and "inside job".
A job pulled off by a group of people inside the US.
I believe even the "official story" is pulled off by a group of people inside the US. It's tough to fly planes into a building when you're in a different nation than the building.
Who claimed the people involved were amatuers? That would be the official position that amatuer pilots flew planes into the towers with such precision without any experience.
as an ex-pilot; i can tell you that i flew the plane on my first time out. flying an airplane is simple. landing is the hard part. even take-off is simple. full throttle until the planes air speed reaches flight speed and pull the stick back.
Because it was an obvious slip up. I've been around enough liars to know that they often have trouble keeping their story straight. One could so easily slip up and say the wrong without even thinking about it. It happens most often when some gets too comfortable with their lie and doesn't have as much fear of being exposed anymore.
But your entire theory now requires the veracity of a "liar's" statement. It requires his first statment (or at least your interpretation of it) to be true and his second to be false. And you can point to no evidence that the reverse is not true, or that both statements are bullshit.
But your entire theory now requires around the of a "liar's" statement. It requires his first statment (or at least your interpretation of it) to be true and his second to be false. And you can point to no evidence that the reverse is not true, or that both statements are bullshit.
I believe his first statement quite possibly could have been a mistake and his second a lie. Of course, I can't prove if he is lying or not. The whole theory of an inside job doesn't require Silverstein at all to still have merit. It's just one question of the many. What evidence is there for the official story? It's all circumstantial on both sides with many possibilities, requiring one to draw their own conclusions and interpretations of the info out there.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
No one. The ultimate failure of the theory is that no one can make any claims about "the people involved" other than words like "they" and "inside job".
Same with the other side. Especially the list they compiled of the terrorists and then later finding out many of them were still alive. It requires faith in what you've been presented with.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
thanks for the link. that was something i hadn't read yet. it is pretty convincing, but i just can't believe that is what he meant. buildings don't fall like that. people don't say they are going to pull it and then watch if fall and then say what they meant was to pull people out of there. why didn't he say, we have to pull the firefighters out of there. he said pull IT. they aren't it. i dont' know. i hope im stupid and full of shit, but something ain't right about that whole situation. i definitely want to clarify that i don't want a conspiracy, i just don't buy the official explanation.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
I believe even the "official story" is pulled off by a group of people inside the US. It's tough to fly planes into a building when you're in a different nation than the building.
Yes, but the plans were supposedly put together by Arabs in a terrorist cell outside the of the US.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Good god. This is like that game where you whisper something into a bunch of people's ears and see what comes out the other end.
He said they used missles to take down the plane.
why would he slip up and say something like that if they didn't shoot it down? that is not part of the official explanation. the wreckage was spread over how many miles? twa exploded, it was spread over how many miles of the ocean?
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
I believe his first statement quite possibly could have been a mistake and his second a lie.
I believe in that possibility too. I also believe in the possibility of the reverse.
Of course, I can't prove if he is lying or not.
But that doesn't stop you from using it as factual evidence???
The whole theory of an inside job doesn't require Silverstein at all to still have merit.
Of couse! You can always find some new "evidence" to fit that conclusion. Since the "whole theory of an inside job" seems to care not about fact or causation, I'm sure you'll be able to find support for such theories forever.
It's just one question of the many. What evidence is there for the official story?
A confession by the man responsible. Hundreds of dead civilians on four airplanes. Countless eyewitness reports. A large scientific inquiry. Pieces of buckled steel supports. That's a good start.
It's all circumstantial on both sides with many possibilities, requiring one to draw their own conclusions and interpretations of the info out there.
It's not "all circumstantial". Circumstantial evidence is a fact that requires competing inferences.
why would he slip up and say something like that if they didn't shoot it down?
Are you seriously asking me why Donald Rumsfeld would say something if it wasn't true???? When Donald Rumsfeld told you that Iraq was a great threat to America, did you ask "why would he say something like that if it wasn't true"?????????
If you're going to take Donald Rumsfeld's statement as a literal "slip-up", it then negates the "inside job" theory. It would then require Al Qaeda's shooting down the plane with a missle. Do you believe Al Qaeda shot that plane down with a missle?
Of couse! You can always find some new "evidence" to fit that conclusion. Since the "whole theory of an inside job" seems to care not about fact or causation, I'm sure you'll be able to find support for such theories forever.
A confession by the man responsible. Hundreds of dead civilians on four airplanes. Countless eyewitness reports. A large scientific inquiry. Pieces of buckled steel supports. That's a good start.
Can you prove any of that without doubt? Can you proved that is how these people died? There have been eyewitnesses supporting both theories. Scientific inquiries supporting both. Buckled steel can fit in both theories. You have proved nothing.
My God...what has our country come to? Are we serously suggesting that we (America) planned to blow ourselves up and blame it on terrisim? I am not sure but that seems to be what some people on here are saying. I think at the very least it proves everyones distrust in the government...regardless if it is true or false. That is scary b/c this means as citizens we can become very vunerable.
It doesn't stop me from bringing it up as a good question to be discussed. I never said it was solid proof of anything.
Yet you only ask the "question" in one fashion. You ask "was Larry Silverstein's first statement proof of an inside job theory?" You never ask "was Larry Silverstein's second statement a negation of the inside job theory?" Why is that?
same with either side.
The side of logic will never separate itself from fact and causation.
"So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?"
Comments
Of course its possible ... But one cannot prove something occured by demonstrating that it is possible. There has to be some solid evidence that does not exist solely in the realm of possibility.
then they all would have fallen.
~Ron Burgundy
Because it was an obvious slip up. I've been around enough liars to know that they often have trouble keeping their story straight. One could so easily slip up and say the wrong without even thinking about it. It happens most often when some gets too comfortable with their lie and doesn't have as much fear of being exposed anymore.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
then let's look at the other angle. how much explosives would it require to implode a building of that size? tons. and in order to get the implosion; the blueprints would have to be studied and all the charges placed in the right places. this has to be exact requiring years of experience.
just like that rumsfield quote when he said they used missles to take down the buildings.
~Ron Burgundy
Of course, thats why it up for discussion. There's often no solid evidence for many crimes. No one has claimed this was solid proof of anything...just another questionable aspect of the many to discuss.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
"Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001." -Silverstein Properties
Who claimed the people involved were amatuers? That would be the official position that amatuer pilots flew planes into the towers with such precision without any experience.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
why do some buildings fall during an earthquake while others standing next to it remain standing? height has a lot to do with it too. if it were an explosion; why didn't it blow outwards? walls fell when the weight of the floors above caused them to buckle.
Good god. This is like that game where you whisper something into a bunch of people's ears and see what comes out the other end.
He said they used missles to take down the plane.
A job pulled off by a group of people inside the US.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
WTC 7 is a relatively short structure in the context of an earthquake theory.
I believe the prevailing conspiracy theory is an implosion, not an explosion.
Actually in the case of WTC 7, it happens in reverse. The base of the building became unstable from fires and falling debris. And when you remove the base, the rest collapses.
No one. The ultimate failure of the theory is that no one can make any claims about "the people involved" other than words like "they" and "inside job".
I believe even the "official story" is pulled off by a group of people inside the US. It's tough to fly planes into a building when you're in a different nation than the building.
as an ex-pilot; i can tell you that i flew the plane on my first time out. flying an airplane is simple. landing is the hard part. even take-off is simple. full throttle until the planes air speed reaches flight speed and pull the stick back.
But your entire theory now requires the veracity of a "liar's" statement. It requires his first statment (or at least your interpretation of it) to be true and his second to be false. And you can point to no evidence that the reverse is not true, or that both statements are bullshit.
I believe his first statement quite possibly could have been a mistake and his second a lie. Of course, I can't prove if he is lying or not. The whole theory of an inside job doesn't require Silverstein at all to still have merit. It's just one question of the many. What evidence is there for the official story? It's all circumstantial on both sides with many possibilities, requiring one to draw their own conclusions and interpretations of the info out there.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Same with the other side. Especially the list they compiled of the terrorists and then later finding out many of them were still alive. It requires faith in what you've been presented with.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
thanks for the link. that was something i hadn't read yet. it is pretty convincing, but i just can't believe that is what he meant. buildings don't fall like that. people don't say they are going to pull it and then watch if fall and then say what they meant was to pull people out of there. why didn't he say, we have to pull the firefighters out of there. he said pull IT. they aren't it. i dont' know. i hope im stupid and full of shit, but something ain't right about that whole situation. i definitely want to clarify that i don't want a conspiracy, i just don't buy the official explanation.
~Ron Burgundy
Yes, but the plans were supposedly put together by Arabs in a terrorist cell outside the of the US.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
why would he slip up and say something like that if they didn't shoot it down? that is not part of the official explanation. the wreckage was spread over how many miles? twa exploded, it was spread over how many miles of the ocean?
~Ron Burgundy
I believe in that possibility too. I also believe in the possibility of the reverse.
But that doesn't stop you from using it as factual evidence???
Of couse! You can always find some new "evidence" to fit that conclusion. Since the "whole theory of an inside job" seems to care not about fact or causation, I'm sure you'll be able to find support for such theories forever.
A confession by the man responsible. Hundreds of dead civilians on four airplanes. Countless eyewitness reports. A large scientific inquiry. Pieces of buckled steel supports. That's a good start.
It's not "all circumstantial". Circumstantial evidence is a fact that requires competing inferences.
All of the evidence gathered so far in support of the 9-11 conspiracy theories fits this definition.
Are you seriously asking me why Donald Rumsfeld would say something if it wasn't true???? When Donald Rumsfeld told you that Iraq was a great threat to America, did you ask "why would he say something like that if it wasn't true"?????????
If you're going to take Donald Rumsfeld's statement as a literal "slip-up", it then negates the "inside job" theory. It would then require Al Qaeda's shooting down the plane with a missle. Do you believe Al Qaeda shot that plane down with a missle?
as do I.
It doesn't stop me from bringing it up as a good question to be discussed. I never said it was solid proof of anything.
same with either side.
Can you prove any of that without doubt? Can you proved that is how these people died? There have been eyewitnesses supporting both theories. Scientific inquiries supporting both. Buckled steel can fit in both theories. You have proved nothing.
Yep
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Do you have evidence that suggests those plans were put together in the US? What US citizen put them together? In which state were they put together?
What proof do you have that these Arabs did it? I can point to PNAC, you can point to Al Qaida.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
here's how circumstantial evidence was explained to me:
there's a 3 foot high tree stump with a turtle sitting on top. it's circumstansial evidence that someone put the turtle there.
Yet you only ask the "question" in one fashion. You ask "was Larry Silverstein's first statement proof of an inside job theory?" You never ask "was Larry Silverstein's second statement a negation of the inside job theory?" Why is that?
The side of logic will never separate itself from fact and causation.
"A confession by the man responsible"
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm
"So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?"
"Hundreds of dead civilians on four airplanes"
http://www.coalitionof911families.org/
"A large scientific inquiry"
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
"Pieces of buckled steel supports"
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover
Feel free to list your doubts.