9-11 Evidence Unanswered

ShadowOfEnder · #**101** (**permalink**) 07-21-2006, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Politicon

I really hope that this was sarcastic or we’re really going to have fun. Elvis, UFOs, JFK, and last but not least: no planes on 911. O boy, the conversation would be endless. Hope that you don't have too bad of headache in the morning.

No I meant that anything like that planes flew into the twins and the pentagon were true as reported by any major media as it happened....I dont believe in conspiracy theories about 911 like some missle hit the pentagon rather than a plane.

Politicon · #**102** (**permalink**) 07-21-2006, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowOfEnder

No I meant that anything like that planes flew into the twins and the pentagon were true as reported by any major media as it happened....I dont believe in conspiracy theories about 911 like some missle hit the pentagon rather than a plane.

O, ok. That make me feel better. I was worried.

ShadowOfEnder · #**103** (**permalink**) 07-21-2006, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Politicon

O, ok. That make me feel better. I was worried.

Yeah I'll explain myself.

I went from "oh damn not another conspiracy theory thread", to "Oh I guess I should have read the first page of the thread", to "WHAT NO I"M NOT ONE OF THOSE CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORY SOB's", to "whew"

sorry bout that ^_-

Spitty · #**104** (**permalink**) 07-21-2006, 04:18 PM

1. Bush did not do it per say, he just played his role. 2. Most of the military knew as much as me or you about what happened that day, have you ever seen Dr. Strangelove? It kind helps explain how few rogue elements in the military can pull off such a crime, using confusion. I think top brass knew about it, grunts not so much. CIA most definitely!

Politicon · #**105** (**permalink**) 07-21-2006, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitty

1. Bush did not do it per say, he just played his role. 2. Most of the military knew as much as me or you about what happened that day, have you ever seen Dr. Strangelove? It kind helps explain how few rogue elements in the military can pull off such a crime, using confusion. I think top brass knew about it, grunts not so much. CIA most definitely!

I'm just going to assume this is directed at me. Sorry if I'm wrong. I didn't address the issue of Bush. Looking at my post it is trying to prove that explosives were not used to bring WTC 7 down. If it needs to be proven that the government wasn't behind the hijackings, let me know and I'll try to deal with that.

Spitty · #**106** (**permalink**) 07-21-2006, 04:50 PM

I think I was responding to AreyouForreal, but I do want to ask about WTC 7. Why did the owner, Larry Silverstein say on a PBS documentary, "We decided to pull it" about WTC 7.

Spitty · #**107** (**permalink**) 07-21-2006, 05:02 PM

I did not read your previous post when you mention "pull" until now, I am still not convinced, other building took debris from falling WTC Towers and did not come down. The Madrid building burned for many hours and did not come down, a man who helped design WTC said that it could withstand a hit from a 707, it would be like "pushing a pencil through a net" Towers came down in defiance of laws of physics (law of falling bodies) they came down at near free fall, one could expect that without controlled demolition, towers would come down slowly or piecemeal, not pulverizing and falling into it's own footprint. Also you omit transcripts (NYFD)which detail explosions, also fires under control ect.

OkhamsRazor · #**108** (**permalink**) 07-21-2006, 09:54 PM

I promise I'll try to catch up on this thread this weekend. As always Politicon, you have raised some good points. I will have to spend some time doing the research to refute these points. Good work my friend.

Politicon · #**109** (**permalink**) 07-22-2006, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitty

I did not read your previous post when you mention "pull" until now, I am still not convinced, other building took debris from falling WTC Towers and did not come down. The Madrid building burned for many hours and did not come down, a man who helped design WTC said that it could withstand a hit from a 707, it would be like "pushing a pencil through a net" Towers came down in defiance of laws of physics (law of falling bodies) they came down at near free fall, one could expect that without controlled demolition, towers would come down slowly or piecemeal, not pulverizing and falling into it's own footprint. Also you omit transcripts (NYFD)which detail explosions, also fires under control ect.

Hmm, you raise some good questions. As far as saying "pull it" goes I would like to point out a couple of things. First, the term "pull" is used very often. For example, take this recollection:

Quote:

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

HTML Code:

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm

HTML Code:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt

The use of this term should be expected though:

Quote:

As to the term "pull":

Given that the fire department is organized/regimented along semi-milaristic lines (evidence terms such as Battalion and Commander), would it seem unreasonable to find that OTHER traditional 'military' terms are used?......like withdraw[ or move out or PULL (back) etc. .......in such a structure/culture as in a FIRE DEPT. COMMAND STRUCTURE maneuvering/ordering about MANY 'troops' (firemen)? I for one would find it extraordinary if such an organization did NOT use such traditional and well understood/useful (and to the point) terms to ISSUE ORDERS WHICH COULD NOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD EVEN IN THE HEAT OF 'BATTLE' (remember the term "Battalion" which is part of their organizational/operational structure?).

HTML Code:

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm

You also raise a great point about the other buildings. There is a good reason that only WTC 7 collapsed though.

Quote:

The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above the them.

HTML Code:

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm

When it comes to planes hitting buildings, no plan hit WTC 7. I'll get to that one later (I think) but for right now would like to keep the focus to WTC 7. It's interesting to the collapse time of the building though.

Quote:

This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.

If you want to see a series of pictures with captions showing how WTC 7 fell from natural causes, please look at the bottom of

HTML Code:

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm

I would like to emphasis that this is NOT a side note but something that is very important as far as my evidence. It's at the very bottom and if you do nothing else, please, please look at these. It explains how the fire and the hole in the building make sense considering the collapse.

Hope that this helped. If you have anything else you would like to discuss please go ahead and let me know.

Sam · #**110** (**permalink**) 07-22-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitty

I think I was responding to AreyouForreal, but I do want to ask about WTC 7. Why did the owner, Larry Silverstein say on a PBS documentary, "We decided to pull it" about WTC 7.

Yes I have seen that quote "We decided to pull it" what was that about...they replayed Silverstein saying that in an advertisement for the documentary in response to a question about Tower 7. I could never tell if it was out of context and did not have time to watch documentary.Did anyone see the interview with Silverstein?