Some interesting info here for those who may be interested

Abookamongstthemany · July 2006

Questioning things is always a good idea even if you come to a different conclusion after taking it all in. I try to never shut out anything without at least checking into what it is all about.

http://bulletin.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=bulletin.read&messageID=1228554402&Mytoken=55BD7732-F4B3-49AA-B58A985F97E61CED29964296

Purple Hawk · July 2006

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Questioning things is always a good idea even if you come to a different conclusion after taking it all in. I try to never shut out anything without at least checking into what it is all about.

http://bulletin.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=bulletin.read&messageID=1228554402&Mytoken=55BD7732-F4B3-49AA-B58A985F97E61CED29964296

can you post some text for those of us not on myspace, Koombiya?

truroute · July 2006

Ya know, most 9/11 theories have holes that are debatable.(conspiracy or otherwise) But #7, IMO does bring up some questions.

This quote/post on that myspace page, if true, kinda hits me.

$600,000 was spent investigating the WTC collapses vs. $40 million on Clintons sex life. The entire 9/11 Commission only spent $15 million while all expenditures on Clintons indiscretion exceed $65 million.
- House.gov, Kugler

But still, nothing against you Abook, all the 9/11 conspiracy stuff that is available right now is the same stuff that was available on 12/11. Untill someone steps up and blows a freakin' whistle w/ some 1st hand irrefutable (sp) information/evidence.........I'm still not convinced that it was a whole gov't conspiracy. I'm more in the favor of the certain ppl in the gov't "let" it happen and reaped the "benefits".

But w/ that same sentence, I'm not convinced. And get tired or ppl bringing up stuff that is...shit..almost 5 years old and call it "new evidence" regaurldess of how compelling it is.

Knowing where I was and what I was doing that morning (day where I was at), it doesnt make sense to me that the US gov't did this as a proverbial Reichstag grab for world domination.

My opinion is still open, there are points for both sides of this argument.

truroute · July 2006

Purple Hawk wrote:

can you post some text for those of us not on myspace, Koombiya?

**here is the copy/paste of the text, there are some gifs and pics w/ it.

Just create a myspace account and only use it to view other myspace accounts and nothing else..........thats what I do.

Jul 11, 2006 2:44 PM
Subject: Please View This Info, It Is 100% Fact
Body: The official story: WTC7 collapsed do to 2 small fires on one side of the building.........IMPOSSIBLE...later they changed the story to a big gas tank blew up and caused a pancake efect...yet there was no explosion...and the building fell at free fall speed - only 6 seconds, WAY to fast to have been one floor falling on to the next floor and so one and so on....That never happened!

[gif image of 7 falling]

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull it' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

Emergency Command Center

In June 1999, the 23rd floor of Building 7 had received 15 million dollars' worth of renovations to create an emergency command center for then-Mayor Rudolf Giuliani. The features of the command center include:

~Bullet- and bomb-resistant windows~
~An independent, secure air and water supply~
~The ability to withstand winds of 200 mph~
These renovations were applied only to the 23rd floor.

Giuliani intended the centre to serve as a command central during city emergencies including blackouts, storms and terrorist attacks.

Structural System

Building 7 was a 100% steel frame building. Like most modern skyscrapers, it had a series of columns ringing its perimeter, and a bundle of columns in its core structure. Its perimeter columns numbered 58 and its core columns numbered 25, according to the rather vague description provided in FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study. The following figure from the report shows the shape of the building and some details about the structural system. The top four illustrations show the perimeter structure, the middle one shows the footprint, and the bottom three show seven floors of part of the core structure. However, it does not combine views of the core perimeter structure (above) and the core structure (lower portion of below).

WTC 7 on afternoon of 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall sky-scraper in the background, right. Seen from WTC plaza area.

This is at 4:10 PM..

WTC 7 collapsed completely, onto its own footprint in 6 seconds
(free-fall speed)
"There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse, if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test. WTC-7 was entirely conventional, imploding from bottom up."
-Morgan Reynolds

Now soemthings to ponder, like; how come the Hilton, that was so much closer and had debris land on it.. didn't fall?

"No steel building has ever been destroyed by fire."
- Fire Engineering Magazine

"The WTC was probably one of the more resistant tall buildings, they just dont build them as tough as the World Trade Center."
- Scientific America

"A steel building survived fires in experiments with extreme temperatures beyond the range possible with jet fuel."
- Cardington Fire

$600,000 was spent investigating the WTC collapses vs. $40 million on Clintons sex life. The entire 9/11 Commission only spent $15 million while all expenditures on Clintons indiscretion exceed $65 million.
- House.gov, Kugler

It's official... it was an inside job.

Purple Hawk · July 2006

truroute wrote:

**here is the copy/paste of the text, there are some gifs and pics w/ it.

Just create a myspace account and only use it to view other myspace accounts and nothing else..........thats what I do.

Jul 11, 2006 2:44 PM
Subject: Please View This Info, It Is 100% Fact
Body: The official story: WTC7 collapsed do to 2 small fires on one side of the building.........IMPOSSIBLE...later they changed the story to a big gas tank blew up and caused a pancake efect...yet there was no explosion...and the building fell at free fall speed - only 6 seconds, WAY to fast to have been one floor falling on to the next floor and so one and so on....That never happened!

[gif image of 7 falling]

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull it' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

Emergency Command Center

In June 1999, the 23rd floor of Building 7 had received 15 million dollars' worth of renovations to create an emergency command center for then-Mayor Rudolf Giuliani. The features of the command center include:

~Bullet- and bomb-resistant windows~
~An independent, secure air and water supply~
~The ability to withstand winds of 200 mph~
These renovations were applied only to the 23rd floor.

Giuliani intended the centre to serve as a command central during city emergencies including blackouts, storms and terrorist attacks.

Structural System

Building 7 was a 100% steel frame building. Like most modern skyscrapers, it had a series of columns ringing its perimeter, and a bundle of columns in its core structure. Its perimeter columns numbered 58 and its core columns numbered 25, according to the rather vague description provided in FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study. The following figure from the report shows the shape of the building and some details about the structural system. The top four illustrations show the perimeter structure, the middle one shows the footprint, and the bottom three show seven floors of part of the core structure. However, it does not combine views of the core perimeter structure (above) and the core structure (lower portion of below).

WTC 7 on afternoon of 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall sky-scraper in the background, right. Seen from WTC plaza area.

This is at 4:10 PM..

WTC 7 collapsed completely, onto its own footprint in 6 seconds
(free-fall speed)
"There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse, if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test. WTC-7 was entirely conventional, imploding from bottom up."
-Morgan Reynolds

Now soemthings to ponder, like; how come the Hilton, that was so much closer and had debris land on it.. didn't fall?

"No steel building has ever been destroyed by fire."
- Fire Engineering Magazine

"The WTC was probably one of the more resistant tall buildings, they just dont build them as tough as the World Trade Center."
- Scientific America

"A steel building survived fires in experiments with extreme temperatures beyond the range possible with jet fuel."
- Cardington Fire

$600,000 was spent investigating the WTC collapses vs. $40 million on Clintons sex life. The entire 9/11 Commission only spent $15 million while all expenditures on Clintons indiscretion exceed $65 million.
- House.gov, Kugler

It's official... it was an inside job.

First, it wasn't his sex life, it was a lie in a sexual harrassment trial. But only Reps can be sexist.

Second, it's "official"? I remember watching them deciding and televising them bringing down WTC 7.

If there's any PROOF, can you please highlight it? Remember, that Al-Queda assumed responsibility. Were they lying? Please refute their claims!

El_Kabong · July 2006

truroute wrote:

**here is the copy/paste of the text, there are some gifs and pics w/ it.

Just create a myspace account and only use it to view other myspace accounts and nothing else..........thats what I do.

Jul 11, 2006 2:44 PM
Subject: Please View This Info, It Is 100% Fact
Body: The official story: WTC7 collapsed do to 2 small fires on one side of the building.........IMPOSSIBLE...later they changed the story to a big gas tank blew up and caused a pancake efect...yet there was no explosion...and the building fell at free fall speed - only 6 seconds, WAY to fast to have been one floor falling on to the next floor and so one and so on....That never happened!

[gif image of 7 falling]

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull it' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

Emergency Command Center

In June 1999, the 23rd floor of Building 7 had received 15 million dollars' worth of renovations to create an emergency command center for then-Mayor Rudolf Giuliani. The features of the command center include:

~Bullet- and bomb-resistant windows~
~An independent, secure air and water supply~
~The ability to withstand winds of 200 mph~
These renovations were applied only to the 23rd floor.

Giuliani intended the centre to serve as a command central during city emergencies including blackouts, storms and terrorist attacks.

Structural System

Building 7 was a 100% steel frame building. Like most modern skyscrapers, it had a series of columns ringing its perimeter, and a bundle of columns in its core structure. Its perimeter columns numbered 58 and its core columns numbered 25, according to the rather vague description provided in FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study. The following figure from the report shows the shape of the building and some details about the structural system. The top four illustrations show the perimeter structure, the middle one shows the footprint, and the bottom three show seven floors of part of the core structure. However, it does not combine views of the core perimeter structure (above) and the core structure (lower portion of below).

WTC 7 on afternoon of 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall sky-scraper in the background, right. Seen from WTC plaza area.

This is at 4:10 PM..

WTC 7 collapsed completely, onto its own footprint in 6 seconds
(free-fall speed)
"There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse, if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test. WTC-7 was entirely conventional, imploding from bottom up."
-Morgan Reynolds

Now soemthings to ponder, like; how come the Hilton, that was so much closer and had debris land on it.. didn't fall?

"No steel building has ever been destroyed by fire."
- Fire Engineering Magazine

"The WTC was probably one of the more resistant tall buildings, they just dont build them as tough as the World Trade Center."
- Scientific America

"A steel building survived fires in experiments with extreme temperatures beyond the range possible with jet fuel."
- Cardington Fire

$600,000 was spent investigating the WTC collapses vs. $40 million on Clintons sex life. The entire 9/11 Commission only spent $15 million while all expenditures on Clintons indiscretion exceed $65 million.
- House.gov, Kugler

It's official... it was an inside job.

and here's the links to the videos and pics

http://www.team-terror.net/mike/wtc-7.gif

1st video has been removed from youtube but if you can get on myspace you can watch it at the original link provided

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f174/pentagonpics2/cmd7.jpg

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f174/pentagonpics2/fig_5_3.jpg

http://www.rense.com/general65/usnews_mapZ.jpg

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture4.jpg

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/images/359_wtc7_fires.jpg

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/uncovering911/images/17%20-%20wtc7-arrows.jpg

http://www.pastpeak.com/clips/wtc7_kink.jpg

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture2.jpg

Nevermind · July 2006

Purple Hawk wrote:

First, it wasn't his sex life, it was a lie in a sexual harrassment trial. But only Reps can be sexist.

Second, it's "official"? I remember watching them deciding and televising them bringing down WTC 7.

If there's any PROOF, can you please highlight it? Remember, that Al-Queda assumed responsibility. Were they lying? Please refute their claims!

It said in a firemans magazine that no steel building has ever been brought down by fire. So the wtc is the first buildings to do it.

El_Kabong · July 2006

truroute wrote:

Knowing where I was and what I was doing that morning (day where I was at), it doesnt make sense to me that the US gov't did this as a proverbial Reichstag grab for world domination.

My opinion is still open, there are points for both sides of this argument.

first thank you, altho we disagree on a large number of things you have always been mainly ncie and respectful in your replies, i also appreciate that you don't agree w/ these things but still take the time to look at it w/ a chance of changing your mind.

as for the quote above it might too far a stretch but
from PNAC's policy paper written 9/00:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor."

and to Purple Hawk:
"Second, it's "official"? I remember watching them deciding and televising them bringing down WTC 7."

try posting that and you will get a bunch of replies stating that wasn't what was meant and then a 'your an idiot to think that's what they meant!'

Purple Hawk · July 2006

El_Kabong wrote:

and to Purple Hawk:
"Second, it's "official"? I remember watching them deciding and televising them bringing down WTC 7."

try posting that and you will get a bunch of replies stating that wasn't what was meant and then a 'your an idiot to think that's what they meant!'

Do you ever have any original thoughts, or are all your thoughts, er, opinions, based on links to fringe websites? One on one discourse is always appreciated - we can all learn something!

rightondude · July 2006

truroute wrote:

I'm more in the favor of the certain ppl in the gov't "let" it happen and reaped the "benefits".

My opinion is still open, there are points for both sides of this argument.

That's a good place to be. But really you know what? If they let it happen, perhaps even just slightly encouraged it, even to the most minute fraction of the notion itself, the mindset is definitely there, and they are just as guilty.

That's what scares me. The reaping of the benefits, and the rubbing of hands scenario. It screams evil. No doubt there is some great evil going on. Which side? I think both absolutely.

To me they might as well have blown it up openly with ceremonial fireworks, music and dancing with sports media interviews afterwards.

There is just too many US gov't oddities to make it seem impartial from any angle.

then there is the money trail...and Iraq going on.

Nevermind · July 2006

Purple Hawk wrote:

Do you ever have any original thoughts, or are all your thoughts, er, opinions, based on links to fringe websites? One on one discourse is always appreciated - we can all learn something!

Do you have oown thoughts? Or is it the right that tell you what to think.

Purple Hawk · July 2006

Nevermind wrote:

Do you have oown thoughts? Or is it the right that tell you what to think.

Yes. I have been brainwashed by corporations. Isn't it obvious?

By the way, even Jay thinks that comeback sucked.

Abookamongstthemany · July 2006

truroute wrote:

Ya know, most 9/11 theories have holes that are debatable.(conspiracy or otherwise) But #7, IMO does bring up some questions.

This quote/post on that myspace page, if true, kinda hits me.

$600,000 was spent investigating the WTC collapses vs. $40 million on Clintons sex life. The entire 9/11 Commission only spent $15 million while all expenditures on Clintons indiscretion exceed $65 million.
- House.gov, Kugler

But still, nothing against you Abook, all the 9/11 conspiracy stuff that is available right now is the same stuff that was available on 12/11. Untill someone steps up and blows a freakin' whistle w/ some 1st hand irrefutable (sp) information/evidence.........I'm still not convinced that it was a whole gov't conspiracy. I'm more in the favor of the certain ppl in the gov't "let" it happen and reaped the "benefits".

But w/ that same sentence, I'm not convinced. And get tired or ppl bringing up stuff that is...shit..almost 5 years old and call it "new evidence" regaurldess of how compelling it is.

Knowing where I was and what I was doing that morning (day where I was at), it doesnt make sense to me that the US gov't did this as a proverbial Reichstag grab for world domination.

My opinion is still open, there are points for both sides of this argument.

Thank you for your open minded reply, after the other thread, I was feeling like I was in grade school being bullied. 'We're not enemies, we just disagree.'

All the evidence happened 5 years ago but more and more studies and opinions are getting out now, so I think they are still very much relavent. As for now we don't have a whislteblower so we have to discuss what's out there at this time.

Nevermind · July 2006

Purple Hawk wrote:

Yes. I have been brainwashed by corporations. Isn't it obvious?

By the way, even Jay thinks that comeback sucked.

it was your comeback dumbfuck.

Abookamongstthemany · July 2006

Purple Hawk wrote:

Do you ever have any original thoughts, or are all your thoughts, er, opinions, based on links to fringe websites? One on one discourse is always appreciated - we can all learn something!

Opinions are always based on what you learn not what you make up in your own head. You take info and process it...then form an opinion.

rightondude · July 2006

Purple Hawk wrote:

Do you ever have any original thoughts, or are all your thoughts, er, opinions, based on links to fringe websites? One on one discourse is always appreciated - we can all learn something!

Freaking little children... go play toys somewhere, adults are trying to have a discussion.

seriously dude cut the brainless crap it's tired....

binauralsounds · July 2006

The thing that amuses me the most regarding the 9/11 conspiracy is that the ppl that post here are almost CERTAIN they know what happened. (inside job).
Now, the best part is, you guys KNOW this happened but yet not one single person involved in this conpiracy has cracked or openend their mouth! A job this big and NOBODY involved says a word? NO leaks?
Are you guys kidding me?? You have the knowledge of the inside job but nobody inside the job has ever leaked? OF ALL THE PEOPLE INVOLVED in this inside job?????????? NOBODY??????????
But your pictures and videos and theories have cracked this conspiracy??? Why is it you thinkers have the answer and the others who see it for what it really is think differently? Why is it nobody, including the mainstream media know about this and have evidence? No, George Norry and Art Bell don't count (although I listen to them).

I just can't understand how you guys are certain of what happened in the biggest conspiracy of the 21st century but nobody involved has slipped.

binauralsounds · July 2006

rightondude wrote:

seriously dude cut the brainless crap it's tired....

Funny, I feel the same with the TIRED conspiracy theories.

:rolleyes:

Purple Hawk · July 2006

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Opinions are always based on what you learn not what you make up in your own head. You take info and process it...then form an opinion.

I disagree, your processor filters the information you recieve..it filters out what you disagree with, and places emphasis on that with which you agree. The absorbtion of information is mostly determined by our preconceptions.

Nevermind · July 2006

binauralsounds wrote:

The thing that amuses me the most regarding the 9/11 conspiracy is that the ppl that post here are almost CERTAIN they know what happened. (inside job).
Now, the best part is, you guys KNOW this happened but yet not one single person involved in this conpiracy has cracked or openend their mouth! A job this big and NOBODY involved says a word? NO leaks?
Are you guys kidding me?? You have the knowledge of the inside job but nobody inside the job has ever leaked? OF ALL THE PEOPLE INVOLVED in this inside job?????????? NOBODY??????????
But your pictures and videos and theories have cracked this conspiracy??? Why is it you thinkers have the answer and the others who see it for what it really is think differently? Why is it nobody, including the mainstream media know about this and have evidence? No, George Norry and Art Bell don't count (although I listen to them).

I just can't understand how you guys are certain of what happened in the biggest conspiracy of the 21st century but nobody involved has slipped.

Oh, because it wasnt leaked it didnt happen. There arent a lot of people that know about what happened.

Abookamongstthemany · July 2006

Purple Hawk wrote:

I disagree, your processor filters the information you recieve..it filters out what you disagree with, and places emphasis on that with which you agree. The absorbtion of information is mostly determined by our preconceptions.

Either way you take the info in. I, for one, change my mind given good enough evidence. I guess you are saying you won't/don't. That definitely explains a lot.

Some interesting info here for those who may be interested

Comments

Categories