but how could they have planted the explosives??

El_Kabong · August 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

In a reasoned debate, people don't actively ignore valid questions that arise from their theories. They address those questions. To suggest that a power cut from floors 50+ would allow someone to access the building free of detection gives rise to the obvious question of how someone would reach floor 50 without detection. And how any means to do so would render the entire theory of a deliberate power-down to avoid detection completely unnecessary and superfluous.

it would be easier to sneak a pipe and some pot into a concert than to smoke it there, right? getting explosives in could be done any number of ways, like bags, bookbags, briefcases, boxes...setting explosives up is entirely different

farfromglorified · August 2006

El_Kabong wrote:

does that mean you can't explain why building 7 fell straight down as fast as the other 2 did?

I can't explain that.

However, what I meant by my statement is that I'm not going to structure a 9/11 theory around the mystery of building 7.

farfromglorified · August 2006

El_Kabong wrote:

it would be easier to sneak a pipe and some pot into a concert than to smoke it there, right? getting explosives in could be done any number of ways, like bags, bookbags, briefcases, boxes...setting explosives up is entirely different

Why is it "entirely different"? Are you suggesting that such activities could not be concealed without disabling half of the building's security cameras? That must mean you know where the explosives were planted. Where was that? Where were the cameras relative to those positions?

farfromglorified · August 2006

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Yep, I'm sure. There are many theories out besides the official one. Lots of stuff out there I disagree with. I do question the official one here because so many are so closed minded against even discussing it...it drives me up a wall.

Where are those closed minds? There are pages and pages of these discussions on this board. It happens ever week.

But at home I question aspects of the other theories.;) If I don't understand how it could be or it doesn't seem cut and dry to me then I have to ask. I do lean towards the un-official theory but not enough to commit just yet.

Ok.

farfromglorified · August 2006

El_Kabong wrote:

even it was fire like you say, it wouldn't have fallen STRAIGHT DOWN in a few seconds

Why not? .

El_Kabong · August 2006

The Illinoisemakers wrote:

Yes the third building fell wasn't it building 7? Maybe the fact that two of the worlds largest buildings fell practically on top of this 3rd building, or maybe it was due to the fires that raged out of control for hours, or maybe it was because the foundation were possibly damaged when the trade centers fell and the slurry wall that protected the buildings from the river was severely damaged putting a lot of pressure on those foundations. It just seems that these possiblities are a little more probable then to say it was blown up to get rid of seceret CIA intelligence or whatever was stored in building 3.

here is a map of the world trade centers
http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc_nytimes.gif

the ones that got hit by the planes were buldings 1 and 2...now look at where building 7 is in relation...buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6would have sustained faaaaaaaar more damage than building 7...remember, these fell STRAIGHT DOWN, they did not topple over.

now that that theory is debunked we can move to the 'fire' theory. to that i will simply point out that it would make it the 3rd steel structured building to collapse from fire in history (the other 2 being buildings 1 and) i guess it's just a coincidence that all 3 were owned by the same guy who took a record insurance policy out on them shortly beforehand? i guess it's just unrelated he went to court trying to keep the insurance money for himself instead of putting it towards reconstruction and i guess it's unrelated that the city has been complaining about him wanting hte city to pay for reconstruction instead of him?

El_Kabong · August 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Why not? .

b/c in hisotry only 3 steel buildings have fallen from 'fire'...all 3 were owned by the same guy...all 3 fell on the same day...how did it fall so uniformaly?

El_Kabong · August 2006

onelongsong wrote:

if the building was wired with explosives; what was the purpose of the planes? if i had a building wired with explosives; i'd save the plane attack plan for the next attack.
there's a lot of blasting around here. when you enter a specified perimeter; you have to turn your cell phone off to avoid unwanted detonation. on the other hand; a detonator can be wired to a cell phone ringer. call that phone and when it rings it detonates the explosives. furthermore; if the building was wired; it could be detonated when the building was full of people.
the facts just don't add up.

and how would they explain how the building was wired w/ explsoives????

El_Kabong · August 2006

reborncareerist wrote:

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.

this isn't meant to be rock solid proof...it's meant to answer the questions many ask of how could they have planted the explosives w/o any cameras seeing them set the charges up

El_Kabong · August 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok. Then why do you use his other statement?

i see it more as a slip up like when rummy said the plane in pennsylvania was shot down

El_Kabong · August 2006

onelongsong wrote:

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.

wtc7 was a lot smaller compared to the other buildings around it which were hit by more debris

El_Kabong · August 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

then wouldn't it have collapsed towards that side instead of from the middle straight down?

El_Kabong · August 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

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 say ppl like cheney and rummy were in on it. part of the reason they stripped NORAD and the military from being able to engage hijacked aircraft w/o rummy's say so 2 months before 9/11 and why they waited until right before the pentagon got hit before they gave the orders

farfromglorified · August 2006

El_Kabong wrote:

b/c in hisotry only 3 steel buildings have fallen from 'fire'...all 3 were owned by the same guy...all 3 fell on the same day...

So let me get this straight...you want precedent for the unprecedented? Good luck with that.

how did it fall so uniformaly?

The question mark at the end of this sentence is a lie. If you actually cared about the question, you'd listen to the 5,000 answers to it you've already received. You'd ask the obvious question that extends from the question above: "why shouldn't it fall so uniformly?" Furthermore, in the context of the North and South towers you'd also pay attention to the fact that those two buildings did not collapse equally.

But you don't have any interest in that. You want the question mark above to be read as a period because you believe the question can equate to an answer which can then be used to support a conclusion. Causation doesn't work like that friend, but you can keep trying to put that square peg in a round hole and then hide behind that question mark whenever your half-spoken conclusions are challenged.

If you want to know what happened to building 7, I can't tell you. I can tell you about a low-probability series of events that could cause that building to fall and is supported by the available evidence. Not having access to any additional information, I'm left with two choices: seek out additional information or begin to wildly speculate. If you're interested in the former, I'm more than happy to share any information I find in the future. If you're only interested in the latter, I can share this: I think you blew that building up.

farfromglorified · August 2006

El_Kabong wrote:

i say ppl like cheney and rummy were in on it.

And the evidence you have to support that claim:

part of the reason they stripped NORAD and the military from being able to engage hijacked aircraft w/o rummy's say so 2 months before 9/11 and why they waited until right before the pentagon got hit before they gave the orders

Therefore they were also involved in this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1744923.stm

and this:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060814michigan-plane,1,325536.story?coll=chi-news-hed

and this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklystandard/20060814/cm_weeklystandard/thenextbigone

El_Kabong · August 2006

humanlight wrote:

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.

look up operations northwood(s)...that plan got approved all the way to kennedy...part of the plan was 'hijacking' and blowing up an american plane and blaming it on cuba as a pretext to go to war w/ them. obvioulsy ppl in our government have had ideas like this before and were perfectly ok w/ it.

El_Kabong · August 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

I could point to the Salvation Army too, based on your standards. Al Qaeda, however, is the only group that claims responsibility. And it is the only group who those 19 hijackers were funded by. Regardless, you didn't answer my questions so I'll just assume you missed them. Here they are again:

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?

which can you believe? there's sources that say al qaeda admits it, others that say bin laden denied any part in it...

i can point ot operation northwood(s), i can point to pnac saying a year before 9/11 they wanted to invade iraq and all these other things they are using 9/11 to do...especially the ending of their policy paper saying hte only way to get enough public support for their agenda was thru "a new pearl harbor"

El_Kabong · August 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

"Pieces of buckled steel supports"

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover

Feel free to list your doubts.

you are aware the nist report says it is a theory and based on models and hypothesizing, right?

El_Kabong · August 2006

onelongsong wrote:

i can provide URLs that show good evidence that oswald killed jfk; the mafia killed him; and also that castro killed him. links are only as reliable as the author and his opinions on the subject matter.

exactly! it all comes down to how YOU perceive the information you take in.

farfromglorified · August 2006

El_Kabong wrote:

which can you believe? there's sources that say al qaeda admits it, others that say bin laden denied any part in it...

You can believe both since both happened. Bin Laden initially denied involvement and made statements indicating such. He then went on to make numerous statements accepting responsibility in the following years.

i can point ot operation northwood(s),

Point to it how? As evidence of a causal link? No you can't since there is no identified causal link between operation northwood(s) and 9/11 since a nearly infinite number of inferrences can be made from that operation.

i can point to pnac saying a year before 9/11 they wanted to invade iraq and all these other things they are using 9/11 to do...

Point to it how? As evidence of a causal link? No you can't since there is no identified causal link between a pnac document and 9/11 because a nearly infinite number of inferrences can be made from that document.

especially the ending of their policy paper saying hte only way to get enough public support for their agenda was thru "a new pearl harbor"

Then why didn't they hit Hawaii?

but how could they have planted the explosives??

Comments

Categories