• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WTC Collapse, It's not adding up

Thoreau72 said:
I used to think that Bush was not told any details about what was going to happen, so that plausible deniability could be brought. Over the years I've changed my mind a bit. Between brothers and cousins-removed, the Bush Family was very involved in tiny details like Securasec and a few others.
Click to expand...

I believe the event itself was a combination of funding and planning by some members of the Saudi hierarchy and Osama Bin Laden. I am 99.999% certain Bush and company knew this, but after the fact. They covered it up, came up with that BS line which the Right swallowed whole, "They hate us for our freedoms."

Was 911 a conspiracy? Yes. But, the conspiracy was the various cover-ups: ineptness, Saudi involvement, blaming Iraq, etc; not the event itself.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Funny you should mention that point regarding Al Gore. I have considered that myself many times.

IMO, the reason Gore acquiesced so quickly and easily on the recount issue, the reason he surrendered so easily in the Congressional proceedings regarding the recount (I think Michael Moore included video footage of that surrender in his movie Farenheit 911) was because he had heard some scuttlebutt about what was going to happen and he wanted no part of it, recognizing that while POTUS is powerful, he serves at the pleasure of special interests. Just a theory.

The only thing confirmed about the building collapses is that the NIST explanation is utterly inaccurate and wrong.
Click to expand...

The only thing confirmed is that you consistently lie
 
Thoreau72 said:
I used to think that Bush was not told any details about what was going to happen, so that plausible deniability could be brought. Over the years I've changed my mind a bit. Between brothers and cousins-removed, the Bush Family was very involved in tiny details like Securasec and a few others.
Click to expand...

Nonsense you let CT websites tell you what to think
 
calamity said:
From what I've learned over the years, Bush fired a lot of the Clinton intel people and ignored the input from rest--it's kind of like what Trump is about to do, which is scary in this context.
Click to expand...
He kept Tenet, and it was that CIA that had his ear.

calamity said:
Bush didn't want to hear about some small unorganized band of terrorists operating in Africa and the Middle East. He had his eyes on Iraq. Richard Clark made this very clear in the mid 2000-oughts. It was that inattention to detail which resulted in the successful attack on 911, IMO.
Click to expand...
You really are talking from where the sun doesn't shine. Getting your information from partisan rag blogs like normal?

The outgoing administration pushed the Middle East and Iraq on Bush, and he followed their lead.

calamity said:
So, if I have a CT on this, it's the theory that Bush caused 911 not by diabolical planning, but by inept prevention and arrogance. The conspiracy was covering that up, and hoodwinking the Right into believing GWB kept them safe.
Click to expand...
How about he didn't have any more to go on to stop it than Clinton did?

Why didn't Clinton stop it?
 
calamity said:
Was 911 a conspiracy? Yes. But, the conspiracy was the various cover-ups: ineptness, Saudi involvement, blaming Iraq, etc; not the event itself.
Click to expand...

Iraq was never blamed for 911 by the Bush administration. It went no farther than linking people of terror linked to Saddam.

Who can you be linked to with six degrees of separation?
 
calamity said:
I believe the event itself was a combination of funding and planning by some members of the Saudi hierarchy and Osama Bin Laden. I am 99.999% certain Bush and company knew this, but after the fact. They covered it up, came up with that BS line which the Right swallowed whole, "They hate us for our freedoms."

Was 911 a conspiracy? Yes. But, the conspiracy was the various cover-ups: ineptness, Saudi involvement, blaming Iraq, etc; not the event itself.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your honest statement.

That is entirely possible, but instead of Saudi, I would say Israel.

There was fore knowledge in several places, longs and shorts in the stock market on the airlines, the only 2 involved. The security companies employed at WTC had a Bush signature somewhere, maybe on the board of directors. I think there is a strong case that at WTC that day all Israeli citizens did not go to work because they have an advanced personal communication system.

OBL was a patsy, a character in a story. :mrgreen:
 
Thoreau72 said:
I appreciate your honest statement.

That is entirely possible, but instead of Saudi, I would say Israel.

There was fore knowledge in several places, longs and shorts in the stock market on the airlines, the only 2 involved. The security companies employed at WTC had a Bush signature somewhere, maybe on the board of directors. I think there is a strong case that at WTC that day all Israeli citizens did not go to work because they have an advanced personal communication system.

OBL was a patsy, a character in a story. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

How is Israel going to get 18 Saudi's and an Egyptian to fly planes into buildings? I suspect Israel knew it was coming for the same reason Bush should have known. The intel on it was pretty clear.
 
calamity said:
How is Israel going to get 18 Saudi's and an Egyptian to fly planes into buildings? I suspect Israel knew it was coming for the same reason Bush should have known. The intel on it was pretty clear.
Click to expand...

LOL...

Really?

LOL...

No it wasn't.

Only a threat was known to exist. Not enough details. Did you want them to shut down all air travel?
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

Really?

LOL...

No it wasn't.

Only a threat was known to exist. Not enough details. Did you want them to shut down all air travel?
Click to expand...
We all know the Bush admin repeatedly ignored the intel on Al Qaeda. I'm sure things would have been different if he had listened.
 
calamity said:
We all know the Bush admin repeatedly ignored the intel on Al Qaeda. I'm sure things would have been different if he had listened.
Click to expand...

Liar.

He had daily briefings and did not ignore them. There was just nothing actionable. He asked for actionable evidence, and none came until after 911.
 
calamity said:
How is Israel going to get 18 Saudi's and an Egyptian to fly planes into buildings? I suspect Israel knew it was coming for the same reason Bush should have known. The intel on it was pretty clear.
Click to expand...

Extremely high probability, certainty IMO, that the aircraft that struck the towers were not AA11 and UA175. No airliner in PA and no airliner at Pentagon makes the official story regarding hijackers bogus. Yes, such men walked the earth, but the hijacking story is bogus.

Christopher Bollyn

Bollyn has discovered much about the many Israeli connections, and he's been writing about it for years. If you knew about MITRE and Ptech and things such as that you might see the picture. Transtech Control Ltd is an Israeli company that specializes in "airfield management", and had contracts in 2001 with several major US airports. 6/18/2004 the Jerusalem Post wrote about Transtech.

The intel was clear? The Downing Street Memo illustrates how 'intel' can and will be manipulated to advance any given agenda.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Extremely high probability, certainty IMO, that the aircraft that struck the towers were not AA11 and UA175. No airliner in PA and no airliner at Pentagon makes the official story regarding hijackers bogus. Yes, such men walked the earth, but the hijacking story is bogus.

Christopher Bollyn

Bollyn has discovered much about the many Israeli connections, and he's been writing about it for years. If you knew about MITRE and Ptech and things such as that you might see the picture. Transtech Control Ltd is an Israeli company that specializes in "airfield management", and had contracts in 2001 with several major US airports. 6/18/2004 the Jerusalem Post wrote about Transtech.

The intel was clear? The Downing Street Memo illustrates how 'intel' can and will be manipulated to advance any given agenda.
Click to expand...

No probability it is a fact that the planes were hijacked and crashed as stated. Your total lack of knowledge about aviation and physics has already been noted.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Extremely high probability, certainty IMO, that the aircraft that struck the towers were not AA11 and UA175. No airliner in PA and no airliner at Pentagon makes the official story regarding hijackers bogus. Yes, such men walked the earth, but the hijacking story is bogus.

Christopher Bollyn

Bollyn has discovered much about the many Israeli connections, and he's been writing about it for years. If you knew about MITRE and Ptech and things such as that you might see the picture. Transtech Control Ltd is an Israeli company that specializes in "airfield management", and had contracts in 2001 with several major US airports. 6/18/2004 the Jerusalem Post wrote about Transtech.

The intel was clear? The Downing Street Memo illustrates how 'intel' can and will be manipulated to advance any given agenda.
Click to expand...

You don't hold Bollyn to the same standards as the "official story." Why is that?
 
Deuce said:
You don't hold Bollyn to the same standards as the "official story." Why is that?
Click to expand...

I've been reading his articles since the beginning. His standards for question-asking and fact-gathering are far superior to any part of what the mainstream media has gathered and published.

For example, by October 17, 2001 Bollyn was writing of the statements of Van Romero, an explosives expert and former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech. Romero commented to the media on 9/11 that "...after the airplanes hit WTC there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." He told the Albuqerque Journal that it was "too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structure."

Like Wally Miller at Shanksville, trying to be a 'team player' for the feds, Romero walked it back 10 days later. Hmmm, none of that was examined by our illustrious mainstream media.

On October 24, 2001 Bollyn wrote of an interview with Francis Boyle, a law professor at University of Illinois. Boyle noted that the Bush administration had provided no evidence of its claim that AQ and OBL were responsible for the attacks. Heavens, that might be fake news like this current wave of blaming the Russians and not proving a word of it. Or like the MH17 incident---all sorts of outrageous claims and not one scintilla of proof.

Yes, Bollyn's efforts at examining the events of the day are far superior to any government effort. Government and media want only cover-up.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I've been reading his articles since the beginning. His standards for question-asking and fact-gathering are far superior to any part of what the mainstream media has gathered and published.

For example, by October 17, 2001 Bollyn was writing of the statements of Van Romero, an explosives expert and former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech. Romero commented to the media on 9/11 that "...after the airplanes hit WTC there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." He told the Albuqerque Journal that it was "too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structure."

Like Wally Miller at Shanksville, trying to be a 'team player' for the feds, Romero walked it back 10 days later. Hmmm, none of that was examined by our illustrious mainstream media.

On October 24, 2001 Bollyn wrote of an interview with Francis Boyle, a law professor at University of Illinois. Boyle noted that the Bush administration had provided no evidence of its claim that AQ and OBL were responsible for the attacks. Heavens, that might be fake news like this current wave of blaming the Russians and not proving a word of it. Or like the MH17 incident---all sorts of outrageous claims and not one scintilla of proof.

Yes, Bollyn's efforts at examining the events of the day are far superior to any government effort. Government and media want only cover-up.
Click to expand...

- Question: What research did Van Romero do to come to his conclusion in such a short time span? What evidence does he present?
How do you know that what he states is "fact" and not an opinion?
Does Van Romero support Jeff Prager's explanation of the use of mini neutron bombs as the explosive?

There have been other demolition experts who disagree with Van Romero. Are you saying they are lying?

T72. Many of us do not use main stream media as the only source. In fact, many of us have pointed out the errors in msm articles. What your present is a persons opinion. Much like AE911T and their articles are their engineers opinions.

If CD is such a slam dunk, when will the one concise explanation be presented with the evidence? Once again I will ask you to start a thread to discuss the CD explanation in detail.

( at least we are getting a better idea of where you get your info from).
 
Deuce said:
Classic case of cherry-picking your criteria to call it "unprecedented."

Steel structures have collapsed due to fire numerous times. But they specified "high-rise" to narrow the field. Can you point out another steel-framed high rise that had a fire of equivalent severity? Did it also include substantial kinetic impact?
Click to expand...

Even more interesting.

We have had a great many "high rise" buildings made since the turn of the 20th century (and earlier). How many of them have ever been demolished? Ever.

These people take everything like it was the only time it ever happened. Well, it was, but that does not mean that their nonsensical coprolite theories are valid in any way, shape, or form.

Damaged individuals, trying to find a point in their life which previously had no point. So they set out to enlighten the world, which they know more than anybody else.

Yea, we kinda saw that in November.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I've been reading his articles since the beginning. His standards for question-asking and fact-gathering are far superior to any part of what the mainstream media has gathered and published.

For example, by October 17, 2001 Bollyn was writing of the statements of Van Romero, an explosives expert and former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech. Romero commented to the media on 9/11 that "...after the airplanes hit WTC there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." He told the Albuqerque Journal that it was "too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structure."

Like Wally Miller at Shanksville, trying to be a 'team player' for the feds, Romero walked it back 10 days later. Hmmm, none of that was examined by our illustrious mainstream media.

On October 24, 2001 Bollyn wrote of an interview with Francis Boyle, a law professor at University of Illinois. Boyle noted that the Bush administration had provided no evidence of its claim that AQ and OBL were responsible for the attacks. Heavens, that might be fake news like this current wave of blaming the Russians and not proving a word of it. Or like the MH17 incident---all sorts of outrageous claims and not one scintilla of proof.

Yes, Bollyn's efforts at examining the events of the day are far superior to any government effort. Government and media want only cover-up.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier in the thread, "some guy says so" is enough when it agrees with you.
 
Deuce said:
As I said earlier in the thread, "some guy says so" is enough when it agrees with you.
Click to expand...

I do hold Bollyn to the same standards, but what he reports comports with reality, for the most part. There are points upon which I disagree with his analysis.

What the government says, all the details it claims, do not comport with reality. The government claims are contradicted by the facts. E.G. no airliner at Shanksville, just like Wally Miller said, just like the photos and videos show, just as the ACARS data confirms.

The government claims it has nothing to hide, but then hides everything. Nobody is allowed to view aircraft wreckage because it's hidden under Iron Mountain. Etc, etc, etc.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I do hold Bollyn to the same standards, but what he reports comports with reality, for the most part. There are points upon which I disagree with his analysis.

What the government says, all the details it claims, do not comport with reality. The government claims are contradicted by the facts. E.G. no airliner at Shanksville, just like Wally Miller said, just like the photos and videos show, just as the ACARS data confirms.

The government claims it has nothing to hide, but then hides everything. Nobody is allowed to view aircraft wreckage because it's hidden under Iron Mountain. Etc, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

The ACARS data doesn't confirm that, nor do the photos and video.
 
Deuce said:
The ACARS data doesn't confirm that, nor do the photos and video.
Click to expand...

You're wrong about that. ACARS showed it in Illinois, and every single person and every single photo (not counting government provided photos) showed the glaring absence of anything resembling a crashed airliner. Because of that glaring absence, some footage from the scene was eventually taken down from the internet.

For having nothing to hide, the government sure does hide a lot. :lol:
 
Deuce said:
The ACARS data doesn't confirm that, nor do the photos and video.
Click to expand...

The photos are exactly what would be expected in an high angle high speed crash
270.jpg
That is from the Payne Stewart crash.
Problem is HD knows squat about aviation or physics and doesn't care to learn he only want to be re-affirmed in his hatred and distrust of the ebil US govt.
 
Thoreau72 said:
You're wrong about that. ACARS showed it in Illinois, and every single person and every single photo (not counting government provided photos) showed the glaring absence of anything resembling a crashed airliner. Because of that glaring absence, some footage from the scene was eventually taken down from the internet.

For having nothing to hide, the government sure does hide a lot. :lol:
Click to expand...

You are lying again HD you dont even know what ACARS is. The crash photos are completely consistent with the crash as you have been repeatedly shown but your cognitive dissonance is so strong you will not/cannot accept the facts
 
Thoreau72 said:
You're wrong about that. ACARS showed it in Illinois, and every single person and every single photo (not counting government provided photos) showed the glaring absence of anything resembling a crashed airliner. Because of that glaring absence, some footage from the scene was eventually taken down from the internet.

For having nothing to hide, the government sure does hide a lot. :lol:
Click to expand...

The photos definitely looked like an airliner crash.

The ACARS data doesn't show it near Illinois.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom