At&t Colluded With Bush Family Inside Job On 9/11

RolandTD20Kdrummer

CorporateWhore wrote:

There are private engineers not associated with the government who do not agree with you. There are engineers from other countries that do not agree with you.

This has never happened before because no one has ever crashed a 747 into the World Trade Center towers before. That's a circular argument though.

I'm talking about building #7. Why not remove the planes from the equation and see what holds up. Building #5 didn't collapse.

wtc complex layout
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7_View02.gif

RolandTD20Kdrummer

fanch75 wrote:

truthfully, one conspiracy I did expect to occur when the WMD was not found was for WMD to be shipped in to be "found."

the lack of WMD in Iraq is why I don't believe the conspiracy theories. why plan all of that out and not have the WMD in place to be "found" if ultimately this was all for the ramp up of middle east conquest in the end?

It would probably be too costly, and risky to plant WMD's. That would also be evidence and "they" don't want tangible evidence against them.

There would also have to forged records showing the sale of WMD to Iraq...more evidence, and also a bad PR move.

It would be pretty hard to fake another countries weapon production. Something would get figured out...again tangible evidence.

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It would probably be too costly, and risky to plant WMD's. That would also be evidence and "they" don't want tangible evidence against them.

There would also have to forged records showing the sale of WMD to Iraq...more evidence, and also a bad PR move.

It would be pretty hard to fake another countries weapon production. Something would get figured out...again tangible evidence.

how would it be too hard? there would be no media around, no one to give another side of the story.

we could have rolled in their with truck loads of WMDs and said, here it is. look at what we found

g under p

fanch75 wrote:

truthfully, one conspiracy I did expect to occur when the WMD was not found was for WMD to be shipped in to be "found."

the lack of WMD in Iraq is why I don't believe the conspiracy theories. why plan all of that out and not have the WMD in place to be "found" if ultimately this was all for the ramp up of middle east conquest in the end?

It was known no WMD were there, it was about control of oil, control of the Middle East and most of all to make money LOTS of money. Did You know this administration wants implement into the Iraqi Law that 50% of their oil contracts go to American Oil Companies? Now that's taking control.

Peace

angelica

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

you know, sometimes i wonder "what the hell is angelica babbeling on about now?"

but if i take the time to read it, you usually make damn good sense.

thanks for that above post.
it lays things pretty clear.

Thanks..................I think.

NMyTree

CorporateWhore wrote:

No engineers agree with your views. They understand fire, steel, and the laws of physics far better than you.

Actually, that is incorrect.

There have been over the last few years, several engineers who have expressed a contrary opinion to those of this administration's loyaltists; including the laughable Popular Mechanics article, which was completely shot down by a few engineers......shortly after it's publishing.

Some engineers called that Popular Mechnics article extremely irresponsible and that it ignored several laws of physics and what is known of this subject matter.

soulsinging

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Really? Which ones the govt employed 9/11 ones?

A little news flash for you. Fires do not cause steel caged buildings to collapse.

Show me why this has never happened before....ever...since or after 9/11 and and just one single engineer on this planet that can back up the complete opposite....since you seem to know so much about engineers now...

Have fun with that.

im trying really hard to recall the last time a jet liner fully loaded with fuel broadsided a building... it's not coming to me.

but you're right, it was just a little fire. i don't know why they didn't just use the extinguishers conveniently located near most fire exits. dan the copy man could have been a national hero and saved thousands of lives if he'd only put that fire out.

soulsinging

g under p wrote:

It was known no WMD were there, it was about control of oil, control of the Middle East and most of all to make money LOTS of money. Did You know this administration wants implement into the Iraqi Law that 50% of their oil contracts go to American Oil Companies? Now that's taking control.

Peace

but if the admin knew all this and was so desperate to control the middle east, why didnt they just PUT some there? they could easily have "found" wmd's there. the government willing to crash planes into its own buildings isn't up to the task of putting a nuke in the desert to find? that's some shit planning from a group that managed to pull off an attack that involved hundreds of people (none of whom have spoken out) killing US citizens on our soil without a shred of evidence.

soulsinging

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It would probably be too costly, and risky to plant WMD's. That would also be evidence and "they" don't want tangible evidence against them.

There would also have to forged records showing the sale of WMD to Iraq...more evidence, and also a bad PR move.

It would be pretty hard to fake another countries weapon production. Something would get figured out...again tangible evidence.

yeah, almost as hard as blowing up 3 buildings in the middle of nyc killing thousands of americans and not leaving any sign that americans were behind it aside from the fact that a few people seem to think it wasn't hot enough in there for a building to fall down.

fanch75

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It would probably be too costly, and risky to plant WMD's. That would also be evidence and "they" don't want tangible evidence against them.

There would also have to forged records showing the sale of WMD to Iraq...more evidence, and also a bad PR move.

It would be pretty hard to fake another countries weapon production. Something would get figured out...again tangible evidence.

I don't know man.

Wouldn't the planning & execution of blowing up 3 buildings in the middle of NYC have as much tangible evidence as a few people loading up containers with WMD's, driving them into the desert, secreting hiding them, only to be "found" later?

We're all speculating here, but I don't see planting WMD's being this big stretch while planting explosives etc in the Towers being quite doable in comparison.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

soulsinging wrote:

im trying really hard to recall the last time a jet liner fully loaded with fuel broadsided a building... it's not coming to me.

but you're right, it was just a little fire. i don't know why they didn't just use the extinguishers conveniently located near most fire exits. dan the copy man could have been a national hero and saved thousands of lives if he'd only put that fire out.

Focus on #7 takes planes out of the equation. Simplify it.

What then?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

soulsinging wrote:

yeah, almost as hard as blowing up 3 buildings in the middle of nyc killing thousands of americans and not leaving any sign that americans were behind it aside from the fact that a few people seem to think it wasn't hot enough in there for a building to fall down.

I disagree. I think there has been enough questionable facts that have surfaced now on 9/11 to indicate that it could have been orchestrated.

CorporateWhore

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It would probably be too costly, and risky to plant WMD's. That would also be evidence and "they" don't want tangible evidence against them.

There would also have to forged records showing the sale of WMD to Iraq...more evidence, and also a bad PR move.

It would be pretty hard to fake another countries weapon production. Something would get figured out...again tangible evidence.

You are willing to claim that they COULD orchestrate a massive cover up on U.S. soil in front of millions of people but they couldn't plant WMDs in some random desert hideaway in Iraq.

This is utter insanity.

You haven't "figured out" anything regarding Building 7 either. Just because they changed their story doesn't make the science any less compelling. Seismographs prove that no demolitions occurred. Of course, you won't let that stop you. You're right and everyone else is wrong. Sure.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.




There you go. A private company. OH BUT THEY'RE CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Yeah. You just come off as crazy when you refuse to accept basic facts like this.

fanch75

and bytchez STILL ain't shyt!

g under p

soulsinging wrote:

but if the admin knew all this and was so desperate to control the middle east, why didnt they just PUT some there? they could easily have "found" wmd's there. the government willing to crash planes into its own buildings isn't up to the task of putting a nuke in the desert to find? that's some shit planning from a group that managed to pull off an attack that involved hundreds of people (none of whom have spoken out) killing US citizens on our soil without a shred of evidence.

Wow, you are absolutely RIGHT, it would have been quite easy to place WMD in the desert to be "found". However the powers that be needed the American citizenry backing any wars to come. Also implement an atmosphere of fear which leads to more laws that take more of our rights like Habeas Corpus and others.

They needed that appearance that America was in the right seeking democracy and revenge, it opened many more doors having it done this way.

Peace

CorporateWhore

g under p wrote:

Wow, you are absolutely RIGHT, it would have been quite easy to place WMD in the desert to be "found". However the powers that be needed the American citizenry backing any wars to come. Also implement an atmosphere of fear which leads to more laws that take more of our rights like Habeas Corpus and others.

They needed that appearance that America was in the right seeking democracy and revenge, it opened many more doors having it done this way.

Peace

You're making it up as you go. If things had turned out different with Iraq, you'd be coming up with another theory about the Bush administration's plans.

You're talking about fringe ideas that don't help us in keeping our government accountable for the mistakes it has made in regard to foreign policy.

NMyTree

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

you know, sometimes i wonder "what the hell is angelica babbeling on about now?"

but if i take the time to read it, you usually make damn good sense.

thanks for that above post.
it lays things pretty clear.

She never babbles. Angelica always knows what she's talking about.

Although, every once in a while it's fun to gently poke her in the rib and see her reaction:D:D

g under p

CorporateWhore wrote:

You're making it up as you go. If things had turned out different with Iraq, you'd be coming up with another theory about the Bush administration's plans.

You're talking about fringe ideas that don't help us in keeping our government accountable for the mistakes it has made in regard to foreign policy.

Why of course I'm making it up as I go along...only to match your brilliance.

Peace

NMyTree

CorporateWhore wrote:

....You're talking about fringe ideas that don't help us in keeping our government accountable for the mistakes it has made in regard to foreign policy.

I actually agree with that.

Although fringe ideas, through out history, have often turned out to be very accurate. But they were dismissed in their time by those who consider themselves "patriots" and loyalists to their country; as the babbling, rambling thought's/works of communists, traders or paranoid nutjobs.

It has not been unusual for these fringe ideas to show merit.

This administration loves these theories, because it occupies people's time and mind and distracts them from the horrible, intrusive, freedom-squashing, human rights ignoring policies, laws and actions they are delivering to not only foriegn countries; but to the people of the United States Of America.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

CorporateWhore wrote:

You are willing to claim that they COULD orchestrate a massive cover up on U.S. soil in front of millions of people but they couldn't plant WMDs in some random desert hideaway in Iraq.

This is utter insanity.

You haven't "figured out" anything regarding Building 7 either. Just because they changed their story doesn't make the science any less compelling. Seismographs prove that no demolitions occurred. Of course, you won't let that stop you. You're right and everyone else is wrong. Sure.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.




There you go. A private company. OH BUT THEY'RE CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Yeah. You just come off as crazy when you refuse to accept basic facts like this.

You had my ear until you quoted popular mechanics...

been there...done that...got the tshirt.

briefly skimming your post....you sound just like a CT'er