crims

I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TWIN TOWERS. I'M TALKING ABOUT WTC7. NO PLANE HIT WTC7. HOW DID WTC7 COLLAPSE? WHY WAS IT IN FREEFALL? WHY DID WTC7 GET SUCKED DOWN FROM BELOW? WHY WAS MOLTEN STEEL FOUND IN WTC7's BASEMENT WEEKS AFTER? HOW DID HOLES AND SHARP EDGES FORM IN ITS STEEL? HOW DID THE EXPLOSIVE CHEMICALS GET THERE? ETC...

WTC7. was. not. hit. by. a. jet. Look - building 7 - Understand?

Bascule... Are... you... re-tar-ded? I think I can help you... Please find somebody who's not retarded. Ask them to tell you what is happening here:

Because...?

To Cap'n Refsmmat: So? Am I supposed to comment on this stupidity? Rust... in a fire... with no water... within hours... on all 47 columns... making holes and sharp edges... No offense but, your theory SUCKS. By Ockham's Razor, Scientific Method, and Common Sense, explosives are the best explanation. Explosives perfectly explain everything. Then obviously FEMA would have PUT IT IN THE REPORT. What about WTC7? It wasn't hit by planes. How did it collapse? Yes... FEMA already investigated. - FEMA was forbidden to mention demolition in their explanation (they were verboten) - FEMA admitted that official explanation "only a low probability of occurrence." bascule: And all of WTC7 did begin falling at the same time. Lets see how much time it would take to free-fall 100 meters: d = distance = 100 meters a = acceleration = gravity (freefall) = 9.8 m/s/s t = time to reach 100 meters d = at^2 / 2 100 = 9.8(t^2) / 2 200 = 9.8(t^2) 20.41 = t^2 squareroot 20.41 = t 4.5 = t WTC7 fell first 100 meters in 4.5 seconds, therefore it was in freefall. A vacuum must have been created in the lower floors when explosives caused them to collapse. Which would also explain: - pools of molten steel found at base of collapsed towers and WTC7 weeks after - huge bursts of energy picked up by seismographs, caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse

Rusting... in an inferno! "can cause explosions as it readily ignites" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_oxide"widely used in gunpowder, matches" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur I'll say again: - pools of molten steel found at base of collapsed towers and WTC7 weeks after - huge bursts of energy picked up by seismographs, caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse There must've been explosives in the basements.

Appendix C of FEMA report http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_403CD/html/open.htm : TRANSLATION: Severe high temperature corrosion attack = EXPLOSION Iron Oxide + Sulfur = EXPLOSIVES Grain boundary penetration of sulfur = BOOM! Very unusual event = COVERUP No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur = BOMB

And how do you explain this: - pools of molten steel found at the base of the collapsed twin towers and WTC7 weeks after - seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse There must've been explosives in the basements.

Ben Fountain (financial analyst working at WTC) said: - weeks before 9/11 there were unannounced and strange drills - sections of Twin Towers and WTC7 were evacuated for 'security reasons' Scott Forbes (worked at Fiduciary Trust in South Tower) said: - his company was given 3 notice that 48th floor and up would have power-off - reason given was cabling upgrade to increase WTC's computer bandwidth - a power-off had never happend prior to this - because of power-off, the security cameras, ID systems, and elevators were inoperable - there were "plenty" of engineers going in and out of the WTC - they had free access throughout the building due to security being off Daria Coard (guard at Tower One) said: - security was working 12-hour shifts during previous 2 weeks because of numerous phone threats. - on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed All this was authorized by Marvin Bush (Dubya's brother). He owned Securacom, which provided security for WTC. ...holy crap... you guys are ridiculous... am I even supposed to comment on this? There was NOTHING left! Not even anything to make DNA testing. Even the steel leftovers were rushed out of the country and to the smelter (FEMA got only a little time).

How would I know? They just need support for war... nuking an entire city is too much. Chemical weapons and bio-attack are too risky, conspirators can get infected/poisoned themselves. Crash planes, kill a bunch of nobodies, make some cash off insurance and stocks - that's their best way to go about it.

To ashennell: Again... basically they say "it's all lies, trust us". A few problems with their explanation for WTC7: - no plane hit WTC7 (building 7 in the picture below) - its fire was too small - nothing there could've reached temperatures to melt steel - its steel was fireproof insulated - it collapsed by freefall (first 100 meters in 4.5 seconds) - it collapsed suddenly and totally (instead of portions breaking) - WTC5 and WTC6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams - no steel building ever collapsed from fire (except WTC's) - FEMA was FORBIDDEN to mention demolition in their explanation - FEMA admitted that official explanation "only a low probability of occurrence." - FEMA said the examined steel had rapid "sulfidation" and "oxidation"; (sulfur is used in explosives and burning it produces sulfur-dioxide) So, by Ockham's Razor, by Laws of Physics, and by Common Sense, fire couldn't be the cause. Better explanation is that a controlled demolition created an implosion in the lower floors, collapsing the entire building. To The Peon: Because everybody already dislikes Iran? Because US Army isn't ready to invade another country? Because Iran isn't crappy like Iraq or Afghanistan and can defend itself? Etc... Speak for yourself... Sure... So why didn't they use WMD's? Just imagine the conversation they had: - "Shit shit! The Americans are coming!" - "Should we use the WMD's to defend ourselves?" - "No, smuggle the WMD's over the border so we have no way of using them." - "Buahahah... Bush will look like an idiot for coming here. Stupid infidels!" - "Allah akbhar! Allah akbhar! Allah akbhar!" How stupid can a person be? Look - here's the OFFICIAL STORY + SOME LOOPHOLES: Terrorists from Saudi Arabia trained by Osama hijack planes. One plane crashes into the Pentagon, dissappearing completely, making a tiny hole. For no reason, FBI then confiscate all 4 known tapes of the Pentagon crash. Another plane crashes in the middle of nowhere, leaving no remains. 9:59 AM - South Tower collapses to the ground in aproximatly 10 seconds. 10:28 AM - North Tower collapses to the ground in approximatly 10 seconds. Later, at 5:30 PM - World Trade centre 7 suddenly collapses for no reason. South Tower was hit last and only by its corner but collapsed FIRST, while North Tower was hit first and directly at centre but collapsed SECOND. 7 of 8 blackboxes (made of stainless steel and high-temp-insulated silica) are destroyed, BUT one of the terrorist's passports (made of paper) somehow flew out of his pocket, out of the burning inferno, on to the streets below, where it was found somehow by FBI amidst all the panic. Then US Army invades Afghanistan to hunt for Osama, but gets nowhere. Then US Army invades Iraq to prevent a WMD attack (even though the invasion gives them all the reason to use the WMD's). The WMD's are then never found (supposedly suicidal terrorists would rather die in battle and give Bush look stupid than to use WMD's to defend themselves), and everyone forgets about Osama.

I did a search on snopes.com for '9/11'.... It's full of trash that has nothing to do with serious 9/11 conspiracy theories. The only serious argument amounts to "these are lies, trust us": Suuuure... and we're supposed to believe that because...? What do you mean FOR THEIR OWN HARDSHIPS? You mean it was the peoples own fault they died in 9/11? As for blaming the government itself, that's too simplistic. It's not the government itself - it's individuals who were IN the government. The country has been hijacked by criminals who have robbed the people, murdered their own countrymen, sent the country's children to die in some foresaken war, and given America the image of a villain. The reason I believe it was a coverup is because to prove the official story the Laws of Physics would have to be violated.

...umm... this conspiracy theory is the first to have so much support from scientists, engineers, politicians, celebrities, and so many other credible people. I doubt you can use the "only dumb people believe it" argument. I mean, one of the people FROM BUSH'S OWN TEAM says 9/11 was a coverup. If we have people from the government saying there's a conspiracy... well, if there's ever been a conspiracy theory to believe, it's this one.

Okay, forget about John Titor already... go to the 9/11 conspiracy thread.

By the way,

Why... why would they say anything, especially if they're getting rich off of it. At this point, going public for any of them is a stupid idea because: a.) They already committed crimes, which would put them in jail or worse b.) They would cross the paths of people who already murdered thousands Like, Silverstein for example: July 24, 2001 - Larry A. Silverstein, who already owned WTC7, signed a $3.2-billion 99-year lease on the entire WTC complex - 6 weeks before 9/11. Included in the lease was a $3.5-billion insurance policy specifically covering acts of terrorism. Sept 6, 2001 - 3150 put-options are put on United Airlines stock. (Put-option is a bet that a stock will fall.) That day, put options were more than 4 times the daily average. Sept 7, 2001 - 27294 put-options are put on Boeing stock. That's more than 5 times the daily average. Sept 10, 2001 - 4516 put-options are put on American Airlines stock. Almost 11 times the daily average. Before WTC7 collapsed, SEC used it to house 3000 to 4000 files related to numerous Wall Street investigations. What about Reynolds? He was on Bush's team during his 1st term. And these other very credible people: It's very rare that someone from the government itself voices conspiracy theories... how much more obvious does it have to be? They're not, basically. They realized a lot of people would be on to them, so they use W Bush as a frontman to dismiss any accusations of plotting. But W Bush is part of a big, powerful family. For example, Marvin Bush owns Securacom (Stratesec), which was in charge of security for WTC during 9/11. The company was sold to their friends at the Kuwait-American Corporation in 2000. But that's not much... you could find so much more dirt about them on the web.

Pft... pusssy!

Here's a very simple argument that shows 9/11 was a coverup: First, look at the times: 9:59 AM - South Tower collapses. 10:28 AM - North Tower collapses. 5:30 PM - WTC7 collapses. Now try to find the cause for WTC7's collapse: No planes crashed into WTC7. WTC7 collapsed 7 hours after the towers. So a plane could not be the cause. WTC7 had beams and columns of steel. Steel loses integrity at > 1000*C. Aviation fuel burns at < 500*C. So a fire could not be the cause. Conclusions: Cause was not fire, and not a plane. That means WTC7 collapsed by other means. That's enough evidence to: 1.) Disprove the official theory 2.) Justify a new investigation

Meh.. I started a new thread. =/

Mm'kay, moving on... what about the 9/11 conspiracy theorists who say there were bombs in WTC7?

Meh... 2008.

Yeah, he got the thing about Olympics wrong, but it seemed for a time like the one about Civil War might come true. He said the Civil War would be flaring up and down, until in 2008 everyone would be certain and there would be some mass realization. The Civil War thing might still be true, because he said it begins in 2004/05 (as in the cause of it, not the war itself)... I haven't seen any Waco-type events, but maybe this is because of the %2 divergence? Or perhaps there's searches, wiretaps, etc., that are going on right now that we don't know about? Still, how did he know the Middle East thing... nobody knew about Iraq or WMD's or anything... especially not before 9/11. 2008 should be the final date that decides whether he was real or fake, because he said everyone would realize what he was saying in 2008.

Is there anyone on this forum capable of critical and free thought?

I don't think so... but I do, because I can't see how he could've known about the Middle East thing. Plus, it's presidential and parliamentary elections in Russia in 2007-2008, and there's been recent surge of nationalism (check this video from Mar 4, 2006: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9179107195689521084&pl=true )... even the current Russian administration doesn't believe it'll remain in power.

They don't have these quotes mentioned, plus I wanted to refute the old arguments people use.