Quake3World

R00k wrote:

Nightshade wrote:I really do try to remain open-minded about all possible theories surrounding 9/11. Take WTC7 for instance, the way it came down IS very suspect in my opinion. So, when someone mentions demolitions, I'm willing to listen. With WTC1 and 2, all I see is people proclaiming their own ignorance.

I don't understand how someone can be open to the idea that WTC7 was pulled, and not be open to the others.

If there were already explosives placed in WTC7, how would it be impossible for the other two buildings to have them as well? That is what convinces me of the possibility more than anything else. I was originally a little wishy-washy even on the complicity issue, but once I learned that WTC7 had been demolished, well, that just kinda blows the entire story wide open.

And you don't even have to rely on physical evidence or bad videos to conclude WTC7 was pulled - the owner of the building said it was on national television.

I watched the towers come down. I saw no evidence of demolitions. WTC7 is a different story.

kinda hard to see planted explosives inside a building when ur outside of it...u didn't see squibs? i did...

Nightshade wrote:

R00k wrote:

Nightshade wrote:I really do try to remain open-minded about all possible theories surrounding 9/11. Take WTC7 for instance, the way it came down IS very suspect in my opinion. So, when someone mentions demolitions, I'm willing to listen. With WTC1 and 2, all I see is people proclaiming their own ignorance.

I don't understand how someone can be open to the idea that WTC7 was pulled, and not be open to the others.

If there were already explosives placed in WTC7, how would it be impossible for the other two buildings to have them as well? That is what convinces me of the possibility more than anything else. I was originally a little wishy-washy even on the complicity issue, but once I learned that WTC7 had been demolished, well, that just kinda blows the entire story wide open.

And you don't even have to rely on physical evidence or bad videos to conclude WTC7 was pulled - the owner of the building said it was on national television.

I watched the towers come down. I saw no evidence of demolitions. WTC7 is a different story.

As you said, just watching the buildings fall is not any sort of conclusive proof that there were demolitions. By the same token, it is also not proof that there weren't any.

pwned?

Every building I've seen demo'd showed clear evidence of the explosives going off. It's not something you can hide. Not to mention that the majority of the charges go off before the building even budges.
And again the common sense aspect is overlooked. Why, if planes were to be flown into the buildings, creating a huge catastrophe, would someone go to all the risk and trouble of planting demolition charges? Much like Geoof, it makes no sense.

lol...nightshade...ur such a moron...

Nightshade wrote:I am so sick of these fucking crackpots.

:icon14:

Freakaloin wrote:lol...nightshade...ur such a moron...

Dishes, bitch. Men are speaking.

wow a sexist pig...moron alert???

Don't get your apron in a twist, Nancy.

Freakaloin wrote:heres the deal...if u think the official 911 story is tru...ur nothing but a moron...questions?...

this is true
somewhere my brain is trying to deny something heinous like this can take place in the modern day world though

Nightshade wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:lol...nightshade...ur such a moron...

Dishes, bitch. Men are speaking.

:icon32: :icon32: :icon32: :icon32:

Nightshade wrote:Every building I've seen demo'd showed clear evidence of the explosives going off. It's not something you can hide. Not to mention that the majority of the charges go off before the building even budges.
And again the common sense aspect is overlooked. Why, if planes were to be flown into the buildings, creating a huge catastrophe, would someone go to all the risk and trouble of planting demolition charges? Much like Geoof, it makes no sense.

Using only explosives to create such a perfect demolition would have been very hard to blame on a terrorist group. The planes were merely for show IMO. I could be wrong...but I just don't see two planes taking out three buildings so quickly, so perfectly.

Most people, for example, don't realize that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed unexpectedly that day. WTC7 was not hit by an airliner or major debris and only minor fires were seen burning on a few floors, yet it neatly fell at near free fall speeds straight into its own footprint. No steel framed hi-rise building has ever done this before or since, yet the 911 commission has no definitive answer why this happened. Compare the WTC7 fire to a fire in a similarly constructed building in Madrid that burned for 10 hours but didn't fall.

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/46563#1102387

Nightshade wrote:Every building I've seen demo'd showed clear evidence of the explosives going off. It's not something you can hide. Not to mention that the majority of the charges go off before the building even budges.
And again the common sense aspect is overlooked. Why, if planes were to be flown into the buildings, creating a huge catastrophe, would someone go to all the risk and trouble of planting demolition charges? Much like Geoof, it makes no sense.

It wouldn't be much of a risk at all if someone came in to haul off all the evidence after the collapse.

edit: For that matter, why would they take the risk to demo building 7?

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Most people, for example, don't realize that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed unexpectedly that day. WTC7 was not hit by an airliner or major debris and only minor fires were seen burning on a few floors, yet it neatly fell at near free fall speeds straight into its own footprint. No steel framed hi-rise building has ever done this before or since, yet the 911 commission has no definitive answer why this happened. Compare the WTC7 fire to a fire in a similarly constructed building in Madrid that burned for 10 hours but didn't fall.

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/46563#1102387

If it wasn't damaged badly enough to fall by itself and yet it fell with controlled demolition exactness at controlled demolition speed, Occam's Razor would lead to the conclusion that it was brought down by controlled demolition, which the controller of the WTC complex, Larry Silverstein, inadvertently stated on a PBS documentary. And if that is the case, how were the explosives set so quickly?

If the "facts" of 9/11 were the plot of a bad "B" movie, viewers would walk out of theaters in disgust. Yet most Americans blithely swallow Bush and Company's version of how things went down, because the alternative is too unthinkable. Please remember that these are the same folks that sold their Iraqi war (that they had wanted since 1997) on known bogus data, and we all know how well that is turning out.

Too many things stink about the "official" explanation of 9/11, and no amount of condescending cries of "Tinfoil Hat!" will make it smell better.

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.
-PNAC "Rebuilding America's Defenses", June 3,1997
posted by Enron Hubbard at 4:15 AM PST on November 11

you're stoned

there are elements of the whole attack

that have been manipulated

but on the whole it is what happened, too many people would have to be involved

you can't control a leak of info on that scale

furthermore, the people that were on the planes called their familiy members

and now they're dead

all signs point to yes...

Tin Foil Hat!

hate wrote:there are elements of the whole attack

that have been manipulated

but on the whole it is what happened, too many people would have to be involved

you can't control a leak of info on that scale

furthermore, the people that were on the planes called their familiy members

and now they're dead

uh..yeah they called their family members from their cell phones...impossible...

they have phones on the back of the chairs. at least on all the commercial jet liners I've been on in the last 8 years

yeah but the official story is most of the calls were made by cell phones...look it up jackass...

which btw is statistcally impossible and it has been proven since 911...

hate wrote:there are elements of the whole attack

that have been manipulated

but on the whole it is what happened, too many people would have to be involved

you can't control a leak of info on that scale

furthermore, the people that were on the planes called their familiy members

and now they're dead

If 19 terrorists did it without being caught why couldn't 19 officials?