What brought the towers down??? [Archive] - Page 14

View Full Version : What brought the towers down???

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

slvrbugjim

06-28-2006, 12:38 PM

There is more than one motive for the elite's attack on 9/11 carried out by elements of the USA government. The biggest motive is more control for the elite via turning the USA into a police state through the unconstitutional, already written well in advance of 9/11, Patriot Act. The second biggest motive is defending Israel from its Arab neighbors. The third biggest motive is profit, massive amounts of money to the puppets who carried out the elite's will.

:dito:

Yes, well said, concise and to the point. :sheep:Some of the sheeple will continue to wake up, hopefully before the next fake terror event. Perhaps we will not be affraid of the 7 homless guys in Miami that are "building an army to destroy the USA, so we must take your freedoms and spy on you, because the people of America are the enemy"

Hopefully most can see through that total bullsh#t

RealityCheck

06-28-2006, 12:42 PM

Large Sarge

06-28-2006, 12:45 PM

runcible

06-28-2006, 01:27 PM

RealityCheck

06-28-2006, 02:25 PM

*sigh*

Nobody is going to explain the importance of 800F temperatures in the wreckage of WTC #4?

:(

I do wonder what justification NORAD would have for operating within the bounds of the US on 9/11/01. Posse Comitatus prevents it from acting within a law enforcement capacity. No war was declared, and I'm not really comfortable with the idea that any act that appears to be a terrorist act automatically gives the military a free pass to act within the US.

Why would the 9/11 commision make up three different stories to account for the failure of NORAD if they could have dismissed it as easily as saying they did not have jurisdiction?

Makes no sense.

gpond

06-28-2006, 02:32 PM

runcible

06-28-2006, 03:20 PM

Yes, I believe that Posse Comitatus prevents the military's use on US soil for law enforcement purposes.

A real investigation might have determined the reason for 800F temperatures. Instead everything was bundled up and shipped out as quickly as possible. Too bad.

They can't win either way, can they? WTC #1 & #2 report is out, and everyone complains about no real investigation. WTC #7 report is still being investigated, and everyone complains about the lack of an official scenerio for the collapse.

PatColo

06-28-2006, 04:45 PM

Hey Sarge, you gotta slow learning curve ?

NORAD did not "stand down". It was effectively nutralized by legislative/exect order placing it directly under Rummy's incompetent whereabouts but NORAD did not "stand down".

If anyone's to blame it's Rumsfeld.

.

Highly coincidental wargames had most of the northeast's air defenses conveniently out of the region on 9/11 morning, and/or confused by which inserted radar blips were part of the wargames, and which were the (again highly coincidental) "real hijackings".

It appears that the biggest maestro of 9/11 was Cheney (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml).

MEANS (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml#bullmeans): Dick Cheney and the Secret Service
Cheney was Commander in Chief on 9/11 calling the shots via Secret Service.

Secret Service has the legal authority to take supreme command over all agencies in the United States in time of a national emergency on U.S. soil. Even the Air Force recognizes Secret Service supremacy.

Secret Service has the highest technological communication systems of any agency in the U.S. - as it should.

On 9/11 Secret Service had the technology to see FAA radar screens in real time.

Secret Service was in the decision-making loop as early as 8:15am on 9/11, no later than 8:45am.

Everything was in place on 9/11 for the Commander in Chief to have full supreme control of the Air Force via the Secret Service communication systems and legal mandate to take supreme command.

However, Bush was reading about goats in Booker Elementary School. Secret Service was within arms' reach, and they chose to keep him there as the 9/11 plot unfolded. Bush's Secret Service detail was in full communication with Cheney's Secret Service agents in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) as the 9/11 plot unfolded.

Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11 and Secret Service was the supreme command.

runcible

06-28-2006, 05:28 PM

Doesn't the US military wargame frequently?

When I lived in North Dakota, I seem to remember every so often the paper would announce flightpath restrictions based on the air force training or running some scenerio.

gpond

06-28-2006, 06:13 PM

You know very well that wargames and exercises are not unusual.

Several jets deviating substantially from their flight paths for nearly an hour without even one of them being challenged, now that is unusual. It is difficult to believe, which I think is the root meaning of the word incredible.

gpond

06-28-2006, 06:16 PM

Wargames depicting hijacked flights being crashed into the WTC on the very morning that hijacked flights were being crashed into the WTC - also unusual. Incredible, really.

Veritas

06-28-2006, 11:51 PM

What about the continuing terrorism that Veritas denies has anything to do with the initial attack on the United States?

Hey Boy Wonder, I see you still don't get it.

First of all, 9/11 was not the "initial attack". The WTC was attacked back in 1993 and the Director of the FBI in New York was found guilty in court of being the mastermind behind the plot to explode a bomb beneath the towers, then frame Muslim "extremists" on carrying out the attack.

9/11 was the second attack in which we organized an attack and then pointed the finger at the shadowy evil-doers, the "Muslim extremists" being harbored by the "Axis of Evil". Sounds like a sci-fi horror film created by Hollywood.

Rahter than continue with the same nonsensical redundance, why don't you try examining the facts. I have posted them. Large Sarge has posted them, APatriot has posted them, Gunner has posted them, Three J Tribe has posted them, and many others have made some terrific points. Where have you been? All you do is come out late in the game and say that the "conspiracy theory" doesn't make sense. In reality, it's you who doesn't make any sense.

Address the facts. I'm all ears...

Halophyte

06-29-2006, 12:55 AM

The WTC was attacked back in 1993 and the Director of the FBI in New York was found guilty in court of being the mastermind behind the plot to explode a bomb beneath the towers, ....

Linky to conviction, please.

I know these idiots set this stuff up to score a 'gold star' and climb the ladder of success, but need a link, if ya' got one.

.

Infidel

06-29-2006, 03:57 AM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=Penn+%26+Teller

Large Sarge

06-29-2006, 07:45 AM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=Penn+%26+Teller

Pretty lame attempt at discrediting the truth.

lots of personal attacks, no explanations for wtc 7, free fall speeds, NORAD standing down, etc

reminds me of Govt propaganda.

Large Sarge

06-29-2006, 07:48 AM

Ed Griffin's comments, reposted

IS BUILDING SEVEN THE SMOKING GUN OF 9/11?
Many subscribers have asked my opinion of the possibility that, on 9/11, the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition. My view is that all the evidence points in that direction, but I have been reluctant to dwell on the issue because it can get people sidetracked from other issues about which there can be no question – such as the fact that CFR controllers of the Bush Administration had ample foreknowledge of the attacks but decided to allow them. One really doesn't need to go any further than that to understand that the entire War on Terrorism is a ploy for hidden agendas, so why must we look for areas to discuss where the evidence is merely circumstantial?
That is still my attitude, but it occurred to me several months ago that the evidence for a controlled demolition of the Twin Towers is far more than circumstantial. It may not be "proof" for those who will accept nothing short of written confessions from the perpetrators, but is a significant factor to consider nevertheless.
There is no such thing as absolute proof. There is only evidence. Proof may be defined as sufficient evidence to convince the observer that a particular hypothesis is true. The same evidence that is sufficient to convince one person may be insufficient for another. The case may be proved to the first but not to the second who still needs more evidence. It is in the spirit of this reality that I offer the following evidence.
SILVERSTEIN SAYS THE BUILDING WAS PULLED
Larry Silverstein, the owner of The Twin Towers and Building 7, said on a PBS TV documentary entitled America Rebuilds, broadcast in September 2002, that he and others made a decision to "pull" Building 7 because of fires on two of its floors. He didn't say who the others were, but it was assumed to be the New York Fire Department. The term "pull" is commonly used in the building industry to mean a controlled demolition. His exact words were: “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it; and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.”
This was the genesis of a thousand articles and blogs suggesting that Silverstein had deliberately destroyed his own buildings for the purpose of collecting insurance on them which, reportedly, was about two times their actual value.
2 YEARS LATER, HE CHANGED HIS STORY
Two years later, after his statement had come under scrutiny and the full implications began to emerge, Silverstein claimed that, when he said “pull” he was only talking about pulling the firefighters out of the building!
It is tempting to just laugh at this statement thinking that no one could take it seriously. However, a review of the Internet shows that there are, indeed, many commentators who are content to accept his revised explanation. So, let us briefly analyze. The fires in Building 7 were relatively small and were limited to two locations. All occupants of the building had been evacuated and, at no time was there any reason to think that the fires would cause additional loss of life – and at no time were the fires considered to be a threat to the structural integrity of Building 7.
In view of all these facts, I believe it is far more logical to believe that Silverstein was talking about pulling the building rather than the fire fighters. Watch the video and listen carefully to the inflection of his voice as he ties together the phrase: “they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.” There can be no doubt that the two events are tied together just as the words are: the decision to pull and the collapse of the building. Notice, also, that there is no indication of surprise when he mentions the collapse. If he had not anticipated the collapse, one would expect him to say something like: "It's a good thing we made the decision to get those fire fighters out of there, because, much to our surprise, the building collapse just a short time afterward." But he did not say anything like that. He simply said, as in one continuous thought: "They made the decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse." Watch the video here and judge for yourself: Silverstein on PBS (http://m1e.net/c?33459073-hwDcbkXR.jrCo%401740284-Vcm1Z9qQqg/9w)
THE FASTEST BUILDING DEMOLITION IN HISTORY
If you still think that Silverstein was referring to fire fighters, there is no point in reading any further. You will not consider what follows to be of any significance. However, if your judgment plus the manner in which Building 7 collapsed lead to you believe that it was brought down by controlled demolition, then what follows may be of interest.
It takes many weeks of planning and preparation by a team of highly trained experts to bring down a structure the size of Building 7. The first step is to locate a qualified organization. Their number is small, and it is not likely that the New York Fire Department is one of them. After negotiating a contract, the engineers have to obtain master blueprints and identify the main structural components. They must analyze the building materials, the thickness of load-bearing beams, the weight that rests upon them, the space between them, where the access points are to place charges, how intense the charges must be, in what timing sequence they must be ignited. A computerized firing system must be programmed to deliver the precisely timed firing impulses. Then the charges must be obtained from a storage depot in a remote location away from urban areas. Technicians must gain access to the beams and, in many cases, hack their way through walls to get to them. Safety procedures are followed to insure that all technicians are clear of the area before implosion is triggered.
This is just a sampling of what must be done before a building like Number 7 can be pulled, and it normally takes many weeks or even months to do it. Yet, the elapsed time between Mr. Silverstein's decision to “pull” the building and the final collapse was 45 minutes!
What more do we need to know? For many of us, the evidence is comprised of so many components and, in its entirety, is so convincing that we consider it to be nothing less than proof. The concept that the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job is absurd. But the story advanced by the government and Larry Silverman is even more so. To explain the manner in which the building collapsed - or that the building collapsed at all - plus the rapid execution of the demolition, all lead to the conclusion that explosives had to have been planted inside Building 7 before 9/11. And, if they were planted in Building 7, for whatever reason, it would have been the same reason to plant them in the Twin Towers.
Those who believe that government officials are telling the whole truth about 9/11 will not be convinced by this reasoning - or perhaps any other. For them, it is a matter of faith and, somehow, mixed up with "love of country." To question their leaders is, to them, unpatriotic. For those who believe that government officials are covering up the truth about 9/11, this will be only one more piece of evidence that strengthens their conviction

runcible

06-29-2006, 09:38 AM

Does someone have a reliable link to what wargames were undertaken on the morning of 9/11?

And, dangit, where's my explanation of 800F degree temps in WTC #4's rubble? Come on, conspiracy theorists. You've pointed out the images to me, lets see if you can explain the data they provide...

Large Sarge

06-29-2006, 09:43 AM

And, dangit, where's my explanation of 800F degree temps in WTC #4's rubble? Come on, conspiracy theorists. You've pointed out the images to me, lets see if you can explain the data they provide...

I think you got a lot more explaining to do with the official story than we do.

Veritas

06-30-2006, 03:47 AM

Linky to conviction, please.

I know these idiots set this stuff up to score a 'gold star' and climb the ladder of success, but need a link, if ya' got one.

.

I can no longer provide a direct link to the New York Times article of October 28, 1993 because I no longer pay for access to archived journals. I can however, provide you a cut and paste of the actual article itself, unedited, as it appeared in the New York Times....

The New York Times Section A;
Page 1; Column 4; Metropolitan Desk October 28, 1993,
Thursday, Late Edition - Final Correction Appended

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

"Do you deny," Mr. Salem says he told the other agent, "your supervisor is the main reason of bombing the World Trade Center?" Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev did not deny it. "We was handling the case perfectly well until the supervisor came and messed it up, upside down."

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York City's tallest towers. The explosion left six people dead, more than 1,000 injured and damages in excess of half a billion dollars. Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court in that attack.

Mr. Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian army officer, was used by the Government to penetrate a circle of Muslim extremists now charged in two bombing cases: the World Trade Center attack and a foiled plot to destroy the United Nations, the Hudson River tunnels and other New York City landmarks. He is the crucial witness in the second bombing case, but his work for the Government was erratic, and for months before the trade center blast, he was feuding with the F.B.I.

Supervisor 'Messed It Up'

After the bombing, he resumed his undercover work. In an undated transcript of a conversation from that period, Mr. Salem recounts a talk he had had earlier with an agent about an unnamed F.B.I. supervisor who, he said, "came and messed it up."

"He requested to meet me in the hotel," Mr. Salem says of the supervisor. "He requested to make me to testify and if he didn't push for that, we'll be going building the bomb with a phony powder and grabbing the people who was involved in it. But since you, we didn't do that."

The transcript quotes Mr. Salem as saying that he wanted to complain to F.B.I. headquarters in Washington about the bureau's failure to stop the bombing, but was dissuaded by an agent identified as John Anticev.

"He said, I don't think that the New York people would like the things out of the New York office to go to Washington, D.C.," Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev had told him.

Another agent, identified as Nancy Floyd, does not dispute Mr. Salem's account, but rather, appears to agree with it, saying of the New York people: "Well, of course not, because they don't want to get their butts chewed."

Mary Jo White, who, as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York is prosecuting defendants in two related bombing cases, declined yesterday to comment on the Salem allegations or any other aspect of the cases. An investigator close to the case who refused to be identified further said, "We wish he would have saved the world," but called Mr. Salem's claims "figments of his imagination."

The transcripts, which are stamped "draft" and compiled from 70 tapes recorded secretly during the last two years by Mr. Salem, were turned over to defense lawyers in the second bombing case by the Government on Tuesday under a judge's order barring lawyers from disseminating them. A large portion of the material was made available to The New York Times.
In a letter to Federal Judge Michael B. Mukasey, Andrew C. McCarthy, an assistant United States attorney, said that he had learned of the tapes while debriefing Mr. Salem and that the informer had then voluntarily turned them over. Other Salem tapes and transcripts were being withheld pending Government review, of "security and other issues," Mr. McCarthy said.

William M. Kunstler, a defense lawyer in the case, accused the Government this week of improper delay in handing over all the material. The transcripts he had seen, he said, "were filled with all sorts of Government misconduct." But citing the judge's order, he said he could not provide any details.

The transcripts do not make clear the extent to which Federal authorities knew that there was a plan to bomb the World Trade Center, merely that they knew that a bombing of some sort was being discussed. But Mr. Salem's evident anguish at not being able to thwart the trade center blast is a recurrent theme in the transcripts. In one of the first numbered tapes, Mr. Salem is quoted as telling agent Floyd: "Since the bomb went off I feel terrible. I feel bad. I feel here is people who don't listen." Ms. Floyd seems to commiserate, saying, "hey, I mean it wasn't like you didn't try and I didn't try."

In an apparent reference to Mr. Salem's complaints about the supervisor, Agent Floyd adds, "You can't force people to do the right thing."
The investigator involved in the case who would not be quoted by name said that Mr. Salem may have been led to believe by the agents that they were blameless for any mistakes. It was a classic agent's tactic, he said, to "blame the boss for all that's bad and take credit for all the good things."

In another point in the transcripts, Mr. Salem recounts a conversation he said he had with Mr. Anticev, saying, "I said, 'Guys, now you saw this bomb went off and you both know that we could avoid that.' " At another point, Mr. Salem says, "You get paid, guys, to prevent problems like this from happening."

Mr. Salem talks of the plan to substitute harmless powder for explosives during another conversation with agent Floyd. In that conversation, he recalls a previous discussion with Mr. Anticev.

"Do you deny," Mr. Salem says he told the other agent, "your supervisor is the main reason of bombing the World Trade Center?" Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev did not deny it. "We was handling the case perfectly well until the supervisor came and messed it up, upside down."

The transcripts reflect an effort to keep Mr. Salem as an intelligence asset who would not have to go public or testify.

A police detective working with the F.B.I., Louis Napoli, assures Mr. Salem in one conversation, "We can give you total immunity towards prosecution, towards, ah, ah, testifying." But he adds: "I still have to tell you that if you're the only game in town in regards to the information," then, he says, "you'll have to testify."

Studied for Signs of Illegality

The transcripts are being closely studied by lawyers looking for signs that Mr. Salem and the law enforcement officials, in their zeal to gather evidence, may have crossed the legal line into entrapment, a charge that defense counsel have already raised.

But the transcripts show that the officials were concerned that by associating with bombing defendants awaiting trial in the Metropolitan Correctional Center, Mr. Salem might have been accused of spying on the defense.

In an undated conversation, Mr. Anticev tries to explain the perils.
"We're not allowed to have any information regarding that," he tells Mr. Salem. "That could jeopardize, you know, if you go see a lawyer, ah, you know, with the defendant's friend or whatever like that, and you're talking about things we're not suppose to, ah, condone that. We're not supposed to make people do that for us. That's like sacred ground. You can't be privileged, ah, you can't know what's being talked about at all."

Mr. Salem seems to bridle. "I, I, I don't think that's right," he says.
The agent insists: "Yeah, but that's just a guideline. If that ever happened, ah, you can back and reported on the meeting between, ah, you know, Kunstler and Mohammad A. Elgabrown. Forget about it. I mean a lot of people ah the case can get thrown out. You understand?" The references were to the defense lawyer, Mr. Kunstler, and his client in the second bomb case, Ibrahim A. Elgabrowny.

Mr. Salem seems to reluctantly agree.

"They want you to have a hand in it," Mr. Anticev goes on, "but they're afraid that when you get that kind of, ah, too deep, like me, it's almost like, especially with all this legal stuff going on right now."

If it were just intelligence gathering, the agent says, "You can do anything you want. You could go crazy over there and have a good time. Do you know what I mean?"

The agent goes on: "But now that everything is going to court and there is legal stuff and it's just, it's just too hard. It's just too tricky, if, this, you know. And then there's the fact if you come by with the big information, he did this, ah, let me talk about this with the other people again."

"O.K.," Mr. Salem says. "All right. O.K."

PatColo

06-30-2006, 02:58 PM

I went out for my walk today, and wow, it really seems as though the church going crowd is waking up fast. :applause_

Merlin

06-30-2006, 03:14 PM

I went out for my walk today, and wow, it really seems as though the church going crowd is waking up fast. :applause_

If only it were true!

runcible

06-30-2006, 03:56 PM

I think you got a lot more explaining to do with the official story than we do.

I've told you the official story's explanation: The burning rubbish could get up to 800°F.

What's your explanation for 800°F temps in the wreckage of WTC #4?

Do you even have an explanation? Some here might think you grabbed the thermal image of the WTC burning wreckage and used it to denounce the official story without understanding what you were looking at or what data it stated.

Of course, that's some people.

Large Sarge

06-30-2006, 04:11 PM

I've told you the official story's explanation: The burning rubbish could get up to 800°F.

What's your explanation for 800°F temps in the wreckage of WTC #4?

Do you even have an explanation? Some here might think you grabbed the thermal image of the WTC burning wreckage and used it to denounce the official story without understanding what you were looking at or what data it stated.

Of course, that's some people.

how about you answer first, be a gentleman, instead of a troll.

1. What caused WTC 7 to collapse?
2 a. why was NORAD effectively shut down on the one day they were actually needed?
2 b. Who ordered all the drills for NORAD?

3. Who benefits from 9/11 besides the obvious, Halliburton, Bechtel, etc

4 a. When was the Patriot act really written?
4 b. Why was it handed out to legislators in the middle of the night within mere hours to vote on it, and printed in total secrecy?

5. How can Larry Silverstein decide to "pull" a building as reported by PBS, within 45 minutes of stating this decision, the building is destroyed, yet common sense/logic states it takes weeks if not months to prep a building for demolition?

6. What really happened to all the WTC Gold?

7. What about all the financial investigations that were ongoing, and the records just disappeared? are the investigations continuing?

8. How hot did the madrid fire burn when it burned for over 24 hours? Why did it not collapse?

9. How come 90 floors of undamaged building offered absolutely no resistance? allowing a complete (in its own footprint collapse for all 3 buildings), and at freefall speeds.

10 do you now, or have you ever worked for the federal/state Govt, are you a paid troll? , do you enjoy the attention? or are you just ignorant? Do you enjoy living in a police state?

answer those 10 questions honestly and completely, and I will consider answering your question.

slvrbugjim

06-30-2006, 05:52 PM

I went out for my walk today, and wow, it really seems as though the church going crowd is waking up fast. :applause_

Look what I saw while walking down the street today, Huurrayy

:clap2:

http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/users/43c009d7z90953dfb/a363scd/__sr_/b828scd.jpg?phwPZpEBathzB3dJ

+-

Halophyte

06-30-2006, 06:17 PM

Careful Halo, you are entering the realm of a conspiracy on 9/11

Better go back to your plastic dampers, and spontaneous collapse theory, would not want anyone to think you are thinking....

better to propagate the lie, save any remaining face (and 1,000 ounces of silver), and to sacrifice the U.S. and enter us firmly into the police state.

your remaining pride and 1,000 ounces of silver will serve you well under martial law I am sure.

Thanks for all the disifo you provide to the newbies here.

nothing like adding clutter to the mess.

...................

runcible

06-30-2006, 06:27 PM

how about you answer first, be a gentleman, instead of a troll.

5. How can Larry Silverstein decide to "pull" a building as reported by PBS, within 45 minutes of stating this decision, the building is destroyed, yet common sense/logic states it takes weeks if not months to prep a building for demolition?

Considering that the building was sagging at the time, and that he was talking to a fireman instead of a demolition expert, most would interpret his remark as intending to pull men from a building.

In demolition terms, "pull" is to pull down a building with chains, not to use controlled explosives. But if you want to imply that WTC #7 was pulled, go right ahead.

8. How hot did the madrid fire burn when it burned for over 24 hours? Why did it not collapse?

According to CNN, the temperatures reached in the Madrid fire was over 1400°F. I wonder how conspiracy theorists explain that.

The Madrid skyscraper fire resulted in a partial collapse. Do your homework. Note that the Madrid fire was in a building with reinforced concrete, not metal beams.

10 do you now, or have you ever worked for the federal/state Govt, are you a paid troll? , do you enjoy the attention? or are you just ignorant? Do you enjoy living in a police state?

That's more than one question. But I'll answer them.

1. I've worked for state and federal governments, both as part of a summer youth program, and as work-study in college (in which, I took a few courses on mechanical engineering). I've also worked for businesses which have sold goods and services to local governments.
2) I'm not paid, but I'm willing to entertain offers. Oh, and the term you are looking for is "astroturfing", not troll. The art of fine trolling died early in September 1993, which was the September that never ended.
3) I would not consider the US a police state, but there are some disturbing trends. Part of my work is to reverse some of those trends.

answer those 10 questions honestly and completely, and I will consider answering your question.

Consider? *sigh* You got 3 questions answered, I don' see why I should answer any more of them, considering the time it involves, and the lack of a response I get. If I answered all 10 of these questions, would you ignore the answers and go down another tangent?

Btw, in a debate, it is polite to answer the questions asked, not to turn around and dodge the question with questions of your own.

I find it rather depressing that conspiracy theorists are so willing to question mainstream media, yet seem so unwilling to question the alternative media.

The alternative media suffers from some of the same flaws as mainstream media: Needing something to report, the tendency to sensationalize stories to draw readers, aligning stories with readers' viewpoints, horrible science reporting, and shallow coverage. It's great to look at the front page of the newspaper and ask yourself "Is this story important? Or did they need a leading story? What sides of the story did they investigate? Where did they get their information from? [etc]". But don't stop doing that when you find alternative media.

slvrbugjim

06-30-2006, 06:41 PM

[quote=runcible;288570]In demolition terms, "pull" is to pull down a building with chains, not to use controlled explosives. But if you want to imply that WTC #7 was pulled, go right ahead.
quote]

Umm wrong, this is THE common term used in Control demolition to describe taking down the building with explosives, do you seriously not know this?? Hard to believe that you would not know this.

"... we're getting ready to pull building six."

Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pull-it2.mp3 (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pull-it2.mp3)

Yes, and as a shill for the government, you are protecting them here at all costs it seems, so yes we are wondering if you are getting paid. You are tying to protect those that pulled off this crime, so what must be your motivation??

runcible

06-30-2006, 08:07 PM

Umm wrong, this is THE common term used in Control demolition to describe taking down the building with explosives, do you seriously not know this?? Hard to believe that you would not know this.

What do you call it when a building's supports are pulled out with cables, causing it to collapse? I'm told that it was called "pulling" a building.

Hmmm, the internet is not being useful: I'm seeing both definitions. And no demolition guys talking. Or if they are talking, they are lost in the many search results. I did find a result that referenced "pulling" down WTC #6 during cleanup by a worker, but WTC #6 was literally pulled down, not imploded.

You can try the google search: "pull demolition -silverstein -derby"

Large Sarge

06-30-2006, 09:39 PM

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNSept11explosives.mht

Veritas

06-30-2006, 11:17 PM

I went out for my walk today, and wow, it really seems as though the church going crowd is waking up fast. :applause_

You didn't take those pictures on your walk. You pulled them from an internet website. Notice the www.church_____.com (http://www.church_____.com) on the picture.