And recent studies indicate that the official report was wrong.
Some of you people crack me the fuck up. You are so quick to demonize every single word, report, or statement that is released by our government unless it supports your beliefs. The FEMA reports where wrong. The building was bought down by many contributing factors two of which where the damage of falling debris from WTC 1 & 2 and the fire that burned for several hours in the lower levels of the building.
This theory is more believable then our government rushing a demolition team into WTC 7 as two 110 story building collapsed around it. Prepped and wired WTC 7 in the span of a couple of hours, this type of work usually takes weeks but that doesn't matter, to bring the building down via controlled explosion.
Just think about it, which senerio seems more plausable.
Could you provide some links on that I like to read about it.
It's not about which scenario seems more plausible. It's about what seems more plausible in general. If the argument can be turned inside out and upside down from both sides, don't you think it's important to do so? Isn't that what is called considering all the facts?
I think your tone of opposition puts you in the exact same boat, and mindset as the people you are complaining about.
It seems the official story has changed their mind a few times now. Maybe I'm confusing different agencies all changing their minds at different times. Maybe it's the same thing.
Anyhow I'd like to see the information that has brought you to your conclusion on this. Do you remember in general what you googled to find it?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Could you provide some links on that I like to read about it.
It's not about which scenario seems more plausible. It's about what seems more plausible in general. If the argument can be turned inside out and upside down from both sides, don't you think it's important to do so? Isn't that what is called considering all the facts?
I think your tone of opposition puts you in the exact same boat, and mindset as the people you are complaining about.
It seems the official story has changed their mind a few times now. Maybe I'm confusing different agencies all changing their minds at different times. Maybe it's the same thing.
Anyhow I'd like to see the information that has brought you to your conclusion on this. Do you remember in general what you googled to find it?
Solat already posted it. Also I am not like the opposition as you say. I leave myself open to all possibilities, but when one arguement is supported by facts, even if they may have contradicted themselves at different points in time, while the other provides none the choice seems pretty simple to me. Had there been even the smallest amount of factual proof to support the controlled demolition of WTC 7 I would not close the door to the possibility of that being the truth, but up until this point in time no such proof has ever been provided.
Yes there are some inconstinencies in the governments version but there are gaping holes in other theories. For me it is much easier to believe that the original assessment of WTC 7 was incorrect and that the building did indeed collapse because of not just the falling debris or fire but because of both of those factors and other contributing factors than it is to believe that the government was able to pull off a controlled demolition in a fraction of the time it would normally take to do so. And even if they where capable of pulling it off there is no hard evidence, blasting cuts in key support columns for an example, to even provide the slightest hint that this was the cause of the collapse. It has nothing to do with being ignorant or sipping too much kool-aid, but with the simple fact that there is zero evidence to support that theory.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Solat already posted it. Also I am not like the opposition as you say. I leave myself open to all possibilities, but when one arguement is supported by facts, even if they may have contradicted themselves at different points in time, while the other provides none the choice seems pretty simple to me. Had there been even the smallest amount of factual proof to support the controlled demolition of WTC 7 I would not close the door to the possibility of that being the truth, but up until this point in time no such proof has ever been provided.
Yes there are some inconstinencies in the governments version but there are gaping holes in other theories. For me it is much easier to believe that the original assessment of WTC 7 was incorrect and that the building did indeed collapse because of not just the falling debris or fire but because of both of those factors and other contributing factors than it is to believe that the government was able to pull off a controlled demolition in a fraction of the time it would normally take to do so. And even if they where capable of pulling it off there is no hard evidence, blasting cuts in key support columns for an example, to even provide the slightest hint that this was the cause of the collapse. It has nothing to do with being ignorant or sipping too much kool-aid, but with the simple fact that there is zero evidence to support that theory.
Absolutely zero chance this could have been pre wired, and flight 93 was meant to hit it?
Absolutely zero chance this could have been pre wired, and flight 93 was meant to hit it?
By pre-wiring it, and prepping the building, you not only would have to have the building vacant for the duration of the prep work. It would be extremely dangerous to do this, considering that you have to weaken the weight bearing columns in order for the charges to be effective. A pre-weakened building probably would have collapsed immediately after debris from WTC 1 & 2 started raining down on it.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
The official report said that they could not explain why #7 fell. Are you now attempting to tell me you do know?
Interesting.
...
What happened to WTC 6? WTC 3? WTC 4? Were they left standing?
And I'm not a building engineer and I wasn't part of the investigation. I'm not trying to explain anything other than basic physics. Basic physics that tells me that if you undermine a 20 story building (the remaining floors above the crash site) the weight of those upper floors will stress the remaining strucutral supports. And as that upper 20 floors crashes down on the next fully supported floor... it (the floor just below the crash site) will not be able to withstand the force and it will collapse. And so will the next one... and the one after that... and the one after that.
...
And the thing that convinces me that the Bush Administration was not part of a conspiracy... they are too fucking inept... and they can't keep a secret. I will argue that they capitalized on this tragedy to further their warped agenda of the Next New World Order and used the lives lost as a battlecry for war... but, they are just too lame to pull off such a brilliant scheme.
It was the work of Usama Bin Laden and his crew... Bush's crew took over once the towers fell.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
What happened to WTC 6? WTC 3? WTC 4? Were they left standing?
And I'm not a building engineer and I wasn't part of the investigation. I'm not trying to explain anything other than basic physics. Basic physics that tells me that if you undermine a 20 story building (the remaining floors above the crash site) the weight of those upper floors will stress the remaining strucutral supports. And as that upper 20 floors crashes down on the next fully supported floor... it (the floor just below the crash site) will not be able to withstand the force and it will collapse. And so will the next one... and the one after that... and the one after that.
...
And the thing that convinces me that the Bush Administration was not part of a conspiracy... they are too fucking inept... and they can't keep a secret. I will argue that they capitalized on this tragedy to further their warped agenda of the Next New World Order and used the lives lost as a battlecry for war... but, they are just too lame to pull off such a brilliant scheme.
It was the work of Usama Bin Laden and his crew... Bush's crew took over once the towers fell.
What if Mossad did it while the US gov't watched and allowed it? That is actually a lot more plausible (and probably reality).
I'm just saying, what happened that day... if you really look at all the details... it's so far fetched. Most can agree on this.
So many things. So many reasons as well, most/all of which are currently being carried out to the letter against society's wishes...and ultimately against society.
Things aren't as they seem. Some really big things are happening right now, and they all stemming from 9/11. Long time plans in the govt are coming to pass.
Dreams and desires are being fulfilled.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
"The 40 story Deutsche Bank building next to the ground zero site in New York, where the world trade center once stood, caught fire yesterday and burned intensely for seven hours without collapsing
This represents another modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours. This building had even suffered structural damage on 9/11 and had been partially dismantled.
The raging fire, which killed two firefighters, was finally declared under control late saturday afternoon, a full seven hours after it had begun to burn.
On 9/11 the south tower of the WTC burned for just 56 minutes before collapsing, while the north tower lasted around an hour and 45 minutes. According to the official transcripts of the firefighter tapes, fires in both towers were almost out immediately before the collapses. "
I'm going to go with the theory that you are smartest than this....and that your comments are instead motivated by your personal agenda.
If my personal agenda is to avoid having immensely powerful corporation run govt's run every aspect of my life, and spy one me, and run amok tearing up this planet via endless wars in the process, then yes I definitely have a personal agenda. So should we all.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Add the impact of a commercial aricraft travelling a t a few huendred miles an hour and about 50 000 gallon of jet fuel, then you can do a comparison, until then, go back to bed, take another Bex !!
Add the impact of a commercial aricraft travelling a t a few huendred miles an hour and about 50 000 gallon of jet fuel, then you can do a comparison, until then, go back to bed, take another Bex !!
building #7? airplanes?....significant structural damage? come again?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
Could you provide some links on that I like to read about it.
It's not about which scenario seems more plausible. It's about what seems more plausible in general. If the argument can be turned inside out and upside down from both sides, don't you think it's important to do so? Isn't that what is called considering all the facts?
I think your tone of opposition puts you in the exact same boat, and mindset as the people you are complaining about.
It seems the official story has changed their mind a few times now. Maybe I'm confusing different agencies all changing their minds at different times. Maybe it's the same thing.
Anyhow I'd like to see the information that has brought you to your conclusion on this. Do you remember in general what you googled to find it?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Solat already posted it. Also I am not like the opposition as you say. I leave myself open to all possibilities, but when one arguement is supported by facts, even if they may have contradicted themselves at different points in time, while the other provides none the choice seems pretty simple to me. Had there been even the smallest amount of factual proof to support the controlled demolition of WTC 7 I would not close the door to the possibility of that being the truth, but up until this point in time no such proof has ever been provided.
Yes there are some inconstinencies in the governments version but there are gaping holes in other theories. For me it is much easier to believe that the original assessment of WTC 7 was incorrect and that the building did indeed collapse because of not just the falling debris or fire but because of both of those factors and other contributing factors than it is to believe that the government was able to pull off a controlled demolition in a fraction of the time it would normally take to do so. And even if they where capable of pulling it off there is no hard evidence, blasting cuts in key support columns for an example, to even provide the slightest hint that this was the cause of the collapse. It has nothing to do with being ignorant or sipping too much kool-aid, but with the simple fact that there is zero evidence to support that theory.
Absolutely zero chance this could have been pre wired, and flight 93 was meant to hit it?
By pre-wiring it, and prepping the building, you not only would have to have the building vacant for the duration of the prep work. It would be extremely dangerous to do this, considering that you have to weaken the weight bearing columns in order for the charges to be effective. A pre-weakened building probably would have collapsed immediately after debris from WTC 1 & 2 started raining down on it.
Also no plane hit WTC 7 and flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania.
What happened to WTC 6? WTC 3? WTC 4? Were they left standing?
And I'm not a building engineer and I wasn't part of the investigation. I'm not trying to explain anything other than basic physics. Basic physics that tells me that if you undermine a 20 story building (the remaining floors above the crash site) the weight of those upper floors will stress the remaining strucutral supports. And as that upper 20 floors crashes down on the next fully supported floor... it (the floor just below the crash site) will not be able to withstand the force and it will collapse. And so will the next one... and the one after that... and the one after that.
...
And the thing that convinces me that the Bush Administration was not part of a conspiracy... they are too fucking inept... and they can't keep a secret. I will argue that they capitalized on this tragedy to further their warped agenda of the Next New World Order and used the lives lost as a battlecry for war... but, they are just too lame to pull off such a brilliant scheme.
It was the work of Usama Bin Laden and his crew... Bush's crew took over once the towers fell.
Hail, Hail!!!
What if Mossad did it while the US gov't watched and allowed it? That is actually a lot more plausible (and probably reality).
I'm just saying, what happened that day... if you really look at all the details... it's so far fetched. Most can agree on this.
So many things. So many reasons as well, most/all of which are currently being carried out to the letter against society's wishes...and ultimately against society.
Things aren't as they seem. Some really big things are happening right now, and they all stemming from 9/11. Long time plans in the govt are coming to pass.
Dreams and desires are being fulfilled.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I'm going to go with the theory that you are smartest than this....and that your comments are instead motivated by your personal agenda.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
If my personal agenda is to avoid having immensely powerful corporation run govt's run every aspect of my life, and spy one me, and run amok tearing up this planet via endless wars in the process, then yes I definitely have a personal agenda. So should we all.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
building #7? airplanes?....significant structural damage? come again?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
*NYC 9/28/96 *NYC 9/29/96 *NJ 9/8/98 (front row "may i play drums with you")
*MSG 9/10/98 (backstage) *MSG 9/11/98 (backstage)
*Jones Beach 8/23/00 *Jones Beach 8/24/00 *Jones Beach 8/25/00
*Mansfield 8/29/00 *Mansfield 8/30/00 *Nassau 4/30/03 *Nissan VA 7/1/03
*Borgata 10/1/05 *Camden 5/27/06 *Camden 5/28/06 *DC 5/30/06
*VA Beach 6/17/08 *DC 6/22/08 *MSG 6/24/08 (backstage) *MSG 6/25/08
*EV DC 8/17/08 *EV Baltimore 6/15/09 *Philly 10/31/09
*Bristow VA 5/13/10 *MSG 5/20/10 *MSG 5/21/10