9/11 - Not proud, but I'm becoming convinced

meglome

Kenners wrote:

FACT 6: Buildings DO NOT under any circumstances at all collaspe symmetrically into their own footprints at free fall speed without the use of controlled demolitions END OF! Wake up for god's sake. It's not that difficult to understand!

Just to add to what humanji said.

I was wondering since seemingly buildings don't collapse like this can you answer me this... How many buildings of the specific design and height of the WTC were hit by planes and mostly left to burn?

I'm not an architect or engineer but I can use common sense. There have been no other truly similar incidents like the WTC and yet people can state as fact they shouldn't fall one way over another. Ignoring of course that the original engineers of the building have little doubt that the way the buildings fell was caused by the planes crashing into them. The one other incident that it could be compared to, the building in Madrid, the steel part of the structure collapsed just as in the WTC. Not the same type of building exactly but strange the only incident we can compare with has a similar outcome. Must have been thermate as well.

Jocksereire

Mordeth wrote:

no, we're defending a theory about a conspiracy.... there's a difference

you back the theory that 19 hijackers conspired to attack the WTC centre and pentagon :rolleyes: You defend to US governments conspiracy theory. no point in playing with words there is no difference

Jocksereire

Kenners mate as i said it already id take it easy and not burst any veins trying to explain to people who believe that a faction of the US government are too dumb to plan this but 19 arabs and a bloke in a cave could.

The links in the sticky thread include all the information already including the presentation of Steven Jones's findings in the WTC dust. Id just let people watch them and make their own mind up and not get too wound up if someone has a different opinion.

bonkey

humanji wrote:

Would it not be common sense for every company in the world to be insured against loss of income? I would of thought it'd standard

No, its by no means standard. For a company to insure themselves against loss of income would be extremely rare.

I amn't 100% certain, but my understanding is that Silverstein was required to take this insurance by some party as a condition of taking the deal regarding the towers. The reason being the '93 bombing.

bonkey

whiterebel wrote:

Claim for the WTC was actually $861M according to some sources,

Just to come back on this...

The $861m is correct as the figure for which WTC7 was insured. The insurance companies agreed to a full payout on this one. However, somwhere in the region of $383 million was owed on WTC7. This money would have been paid directly from the insurance company to the debtors. The balance ($477) would go to Silverstein assuming no other costs. It is reasonable to assume that this is where the originally-quoted figure of around $450m came from.

Also - regarding the building of Freedom Tower, you mentioned that an estimate of $1bn for reconstruction and fitting out would leave Silverstein in profit. I agree. It unquestionably would. However, this is the first time I've seen such a figure. Originally, figures starting at around $4.5bn were being thrown about when the design-competition winner was announced. Since then, the design has apparently been somewhat simplified and the last estimate I've seen referenced was from early this year at around $3bn.

whiterebel

bonkey wrote:

No, its by no means standard. For a company to insure themselves against loss of income would be extremely rare.

I amn't 100% certain, but my understanding is that Silverstein was required to take this insurance by some party as a condition of taking the deal regarding the towers. The reason being the '93 bombing.

He was required to take out the Terrorism clause as you stated, due to the earlier attack. Insuring against Consequential loss is near unheard of though, especially with a policy that size, even though the income lossalone should be reasonable enough to work out. Its the hidden extras like having to house his tenants in other buildings (If he had to) that are harder to define.

whiterebel

meglome wrote:

The one other incident that it could be compared to, the building in Madrid, the steel part of the structure collapsed just as in the WTC. Not the same type of building exactly but strange the only incident we can compare with has a similar outcome. Must have been thermate as well.

What collapse?

Ciaran500

whiterebel wrote:

Insuring against Consequential loss is near unheard of though, especially with a policy that size,

Source?

bonkey

Kenners wrote:

Molten pools of metal cannot be explained by fire(even jet fuel fire) because the maximum possible tempeture for burning jet fuel is about 1000 degrees short of melting metal. Collapse by fire is a physical and chemical impossiblity.

Collapse of steel-supported structures by fire is an accepted reality. Witness the steel-supported section of the Windsor Tower in Madrid, or indeed the recent bridge-collapse in the US. In both cases, normal fire weakened steel enough to cause structural failure.

Needless to even bring up the hundreds of firefighters, law enforcement officers and first responders who reported Seeing explosive devices in the buildings and hearing multiple explosions BEFORE the planes hit!(William Rodriguez a 9-11 survivor tells of explosions before and after planes hit. Read!) you won't find this on fox news because mainstream media is controlled. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml

Not needless at all. Explosions going off over an hour before the collapse fo the building don't help your case in the slightest. As for the allegations that hundreds of officials reported seeing explosive devices....I say you're mistaken.

Unfortunately, I can't prove that testimony doesn't exist. It is, however, possible for you to prove it does exist. I'm willing to bet you can't provide those hundreds of testimonies saying what you claim they do. They will, rather, say something else which with careful editing and misrepresentation, can be taken to mean something close to what you claim.

Fact 2: Certain floors in the towers were closed off and had unusual construction going on. For two weeks before the attacks most floors were covered in a thick layer of dust and the noise was so bad that a british business man filed several complaints and was promptly told to shut up and mind his business. This is fact and part of the public record.

Please point to the part of the public record that contains this information.

Fact 3: NORAD for the first time in it's history shut down for 1 hour 20 minutes on the day of 9-11

Source?

and funnily enough dick cheney was carrying out drills involving the EXACT senario of what was actually gonna happen

No, he wasn't. There was a drill regarding an aircraft accidentally hitting a smaller federal building nowhere near either the towers or the Pentagon.

...and by the way 7 of the 'terrorists' who were supposed to be on the planes turned up alive and well.

No, they didn't. You are presumably referring to reports in the first 10 days after 9/11 from various news sources, all of which have subsequetly been accepted to be cases of mistaken reports - a bit like that picture of Maddie the other day turned out to not be Maddie after all.

Fact 4: a lot of high profile people recieved anonymous warnings not to fly on the morning of 9-11. including mayor willie brown and salman rushdie

Proof?

FACT 5:It's called a false flag op. If you don't believe that a government can carry something like this out think again.

Whether or not the US government could do this isn't the issue. The question is whether or not the evidence supports the notion that they did. It doesn't.

FACT 6: Buildings DO NOT under any circumstances at all collaspe symmetrically into their own footprints at free fall speed without the use of controlled demolitions END OF! Wake up for god's sake. It's not that difficult to understand!

Its difficult to understand because conspiracy theorists tell us on one hand that never before has a high-rise collapsed from a combination of massive structural damage and uncontrolled fire.....and yet the same consrpiacy theorists can tell us that such an event doesn't look like this!!!

You can't have both. Either you have no idea what it should look like, or you can show us a similar case which we can draw comparisons with. Which one of the two positions are you willing to abandon? Let me know, and then I'll deal with the other one.

watch 'zeitgeist'

There's a great idea. Watch a movie which tells you not to believe what you're told. Then believe it because it tells you to.

and check out ALEX JONES(he predicted 9-11 2 months before it happened. Not because he's psychic but because he was warned by highly placed people that something was about to happen and logically deduced it).

Alex Jones predicted 911 in the same way that cheap fortunetellers tell you your fortune. He predicts disaster regularly and with enough vagueness that when something eventually happens he can claim to have been right.

If you say "the economy is about to crash" long enough, eventually you'll be right. It doesn't mean you predicted it.

Alex Jones makes his living selling conspiracy theories. 'nuff said.

PNAC is another good thing to google..especially since dick cheney stated in a PNAC document months before 9-11 that they needed a catalysing event such as a new pearl harbour to usher in anti-constitutional laws and controls.

Why not read it? Its a public document. I don't think there's a youTube adaptation yet though.

Lastly, The BBC reported the collapse of building 7 25 minutes BEFORE it actually happened. In fact, the reporter is giving the detail of the collapse while building 7 can be seen still standing behind her. You can see this on you-tube.

They did indeed.

And you know what...I'm willing to bet that pretty-much anyone who hadn't been to NYC before September 11th 2001 didn't thave a clue which building was WTC7.

There's a simple explanation. For hours, people were saying "WTC7 is in danger of collapsing" (despite what many would claim about it being sudden and unexpected). Somewhere along the way, "expected to fall any time now" got miscommunicated as "has just collapsed". Misreporting is common.

You'll also find - if you check the records - that explosions on Capitol Hill were reported by all major news channels. Amazingly, this news has no basis in any fact. There were no explosions on Capital Hill.

Guys, hundreds and hundreds of people have been coming forward form high profile postitions to expose the lie with facts and eye-witness reports but they are being completely ignored by the mainstream media.

They're being completely ignored by the conspiracy sites as well, apparently, who prefer to concentrate on a far smaller number of people who don't quite have proof, or who's comments they can misrepresnet.

Dirty Dave

whiterebel wrote:

What collapse?

Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire.
Despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse.
The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors.
The building was in the process of refurbishment and fireproofing to modern standards when the fire occurred; some fireproofing was being provided on the steel perimeter columns.
NIST's interim report on the World Trade Center disaster recommends the inclusion of 'strong points' within the building frame design - the Madrid Windsor Building's strong points were its two concrete 'technical' floors and the concrete core system enabling the building to survive complete burnout.
This case study is an example of the excellent performance of a concrete frame designed using traditional methods and subjected to an intense fire. It also highlights the risks when active fire protection measures fail or are not included in steel frame construction.

Original article (Including pictures of what the hotel looked like BEFORE the partial collapse can be found below)

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1205

I'll believe anything anyone can give me solid evidence of - but I do like to put it to the test. Hence the above.

bonkey

whiterebel wrote:

What collapse?

See the way the building post-fire is narrower in the upper half then the lower half?

Before the fire it wasn't.

The missing sections were steel-supported. They failed completely.
The sections that remained standing were concrete-supported.

So an office fire melted and weakened fire-proofed steel in a high-rise sufficiently for it to lose its load-bearing capacity and fail completely.

No-one has ever said that the entire building collapsed...just the parts that were steel-supported.

whiterebel

Ciaran500 wrote:

Source?

Ask an insrance company about insuring "consequential loss" - The phrase itself explains why they don't do it.

bonkey

whiterebel wrote:

Insuring against Consequential loss is near unheard of though, especially with a policy that size,

Just while looking more into this, I came across this link.

Its an article in Forbes, from Swiss Re, who'd be one of the major players in the whole insurance affair. They commented that Silverstein's insurance was " almost sufficient to rebuild without regard to any possible loss of rental income"...which seems to suggest he didn't have insurance against Consequential Loss like you're suggesting (which I admit I thought he had as well).

The more I look, I can't find anything to confirm he did have this. Whiterebel - do you have any sources?

Dirty Dave

Hopefully this works - a picture of the building before the fire

bonkey

Cheers Dave. I couldn't find a decent one.

whiterebel

Is that the hotel in the picture on the concrete website? Not being funny here, but it doesn't look much like the original photos before the fire? The surrounding etc look different. Of course it me have been rebuilt bigger after.

To be honest, I wouldn't be overly convinced by a company that actively pushed concrete as an unbiased source. Bit like Turkeys voting against Christmas.

Difference between the WTCs as well is that the Madrid fire burned with that intensity for well over 24 hours, and the steel would be expected to weaken due to that length of exposure to that heat. There does seem to still be a massive amount of steel still standing.

According to this website, due to the steel being protected below floor 21.

http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/windsor_madrid.html

They have the same photo of the hotel on their website, so it must be the right one.

I spent a lot of time going through all the available material for about a year after, Bonkey, and left it go after that., so I'd have to really trawl back to find the bit about the consequential loss. Didn't dream it though, as it was such a huge thing at the time. I actually asked my insurance broker about it at the time, and he said the risks to that are incalculable.

Dirty Dave

whiterebel wrote:

To be honest, I wouldn't be overly convinced by a company that actively pushed concrete as an unbiased source. Bit like Turkeys voting against Christmas.

True, but bear in mind I just did a google search and that was the first relevant website I found. As for the picture, I think they were just taken from different angles and ranges etc.

meglome

whiterebel wrote:

What collapse?

As Bonkey says it was a mostly concrete building so I wasn't suggesting it totally collapsed. I was saying the steel parts of it collapsed. Sorry of I didn’t make that clear.

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/70791/45480.gif

meglome

Jocksereire wrote:

you back the theory that 19 hijackers conspired to attack the WTC centre and pentagon :rolleyes: You defend to US governments conspiracy theory. no point in playing with words there is no difference

US government conspriracy theory what?!?!?

Okay then... Conspiracy
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Theory
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Now least I be accused of being patronising I'm not. But using the definitions above how do you figure the US Government's official line is a conspiracy theory? Reading on this carefully it seems to me they followed the facts as they are accepted by the vast majority of those involved. Did they cover up some of their own ineptitude? I'm sure they did but a conspiracy that doesn’t make.

Jocksereire wrote:

you back the theory that 19 hijackers conspired to attack the WTC centre and pentagon :rolleyes:

You're actually stating the very reason why it did work, they basically kept it simple. (Not withstanding that US intelligence ****ed up). If you can takeover a plane you basically have a big fliying bomb. The people on the plane went along when they thought it was a 'standard' hijacking. But the last plane ended up in a field because the passengers knew what was going to happen and tried to stop it.

banquo

Dirty Dave wrote:

Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire.
Despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse.
The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors.
The building was in the process of refurbishment and fireproofing to modern standards when the fire occurred; some fireproofing was being provided on the steel perimeter columns.
NIST's interim report on the World Trade Center disaster recommends the inclusion of 'strong points' within the building frame design - the Madrid Windsor Building's strong points were its two concrete 'technical' floors and the concrete core system enabling the building to survive complete burnout.
This case study is an example of the excellent performance of a concrete frame designed using traditional methods and subjected to an intense fire. It also highlights the risks when active fire protection measures fail or are not included in steel frame construction.

Original article (Including pictures of what the hotel looked like BEFORE the partial collapse can be found below)

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1205

I'll believe anything anyone can give me solid evidence of - but I do like to put it to the test. Hence the above.

*Thank* you Dirty Dave, for providing me [ the OP] with facts. And Bonkey and Oscarbravo. I came on here 100% in doubt of the official story and looking for science regarding the collapses, not just speculation about motive. After following some links here, including one I think to debunking911.com, I've been able to throw out most of the CT. CT's tend to be insular and follow a predetermined narrative, and it quickly becomes like a race as to how many facts can be bent around the new story, that's why I was cautious in the first place.

The only thing that I couldn't shake was the collapse of the towers, motive and plausibility aside. Debunking911.com does a pretty thorough job in explaining how the towers collapsed, I strongly recommend it. But, since I'm not really qualified to understand most of the explanation I can only take their word for it and look instead at the evidence surrounding it that I do understand, motive and plausability, of which there seems to be none.

So, I'm out. While very convincing at first, i.e. the towers really do look like a controlled demolition, it just doesn't stand up to investigation.

Ashla, please get help.

*Rob.

whiterebel

Banquo, Just to repeat this is from a Concrete Promotion website. They won't have anything good to say about steel anyway. I don't understand the engineering aspects of it fully either, and every time I go with a supportive website, There seems to be another, equally persuasive argument that it couldn't have happened that way.

Not so bad here, but what does my head in on other sites is the absolute certainity the both sides are right and won't give an inch. Arguments likthe Government wouldn't lie don't cut it with me....Condoleeza Rice lying to the Spanish Govt and more than likely us as well about Extraordinary renditions should show that.

What will be really interesting is the appeal by the Lockerbie bomber against his conviction. If he is found not guilty there will be a lot of questions about the official line. The fact that he is being represented by Gareth Pierce would suggest he'll have a good chance of winning.

As I said before, I don't buy the whole cutesy CT package that Michael Moore, loose change etc push. I do wonder though at the string of coincidences, failings and downright bullsh*t that we are expected to believe as fact.

whiterebel

Quote:
...and by the way 7 of the 'terrorists' who were supposed to be on the planes turned up alive and well.
No, they didn't. You are presumably referring to reports in the first 10 days after 9/11 from various news sources, all of which have subsequetly been accepted to be cases of mistaken reports - a bit like that picture of Maddie the other day turned out to not be Maddie after all.


Sorry Bonkey on this one you are wrong. 7 of the people listed on the FBIs website as hijackers are alive and well and had nothing to do with 9/11. Last time I looked about a year ago, they were still on it.

Ciaran500

banquo wrote:

So, I'm out. While very convincing at first, i.e. the towers really do look like a controlled demolition, it just doesn't stand up to investigation.

Ashla, please get help.

*Rob.

Was in the same place after watching Loose Change when it first came out. Once I actually started checking their "facts" the story started to come tumbling down. My friend recently started raving about Zeitgeist and I refused to watch it but he kept throwing arguments at me and I kept refuting them and filling in the blanks the film conveniently misses out on. He's now back in "the CTs are crazy group"

These stories are very, very convincing if you only get onside of the story and take everything in them as fact.

bonkey

whiterebel wrote:

Banquo, Just to repeat this is from a Concrete Promotion website. They won't have anything good to say about steel anyway.

Thats not really relevant.

People looking at the collapse of the towers tell us that steel supported structures don't collapse from fire. Ignoring the fact that there was significant damage caused by (as someone put it on another forum) friggin' big aircraft smacking into feiggin' big buildings, we can all agree that this damage alone didn't cause the collapse, and 'alternate explanation' theorists insist that the ensuing fires couldn't cause the steel to melt.

We see canards and straw-men trotted out such as the burning temps of airgas not being high enough, but just like a match can light an oxy-acetylene torch, the aurcraft fuel didn't cause the collapse either. It ignited massive, widespread office fires without the requirement for the typical "spread from a single source" pattern.

The collapse of the steel-support sections in the Madrid tower shows that office fire alone, even when fought, in an undamaged structure[/] si enough to initiate a collapse event.

No-one can/should claim that this explains WTC7. Lets be clear on that. But what it unquistionably shows is that the claims regarding the fires in WTC 1 and 2 being fundamentally incapable of causing the steel to fail is patently false.

Also worth noting in the Windsor tower case is the timeline. Yes, the fire raged for almost a day. However, the fire broke out at 23:00, and the collapse above floor 17 occurred at 04:00. So the relevant timeframe for a fire with normal progression, with fireproofing (albeit somewhat below modern standard) in a high-rise building causing the steel-supports to structure was 5 hours.

Not so bad here, but what does my head in on other sites is the absolute certainity the both sides are right and won't give an inch.

I agree. Its frustrating.

Arguments likthe Government wouldn't lie don't cut it with me

They wouldn't cut it with me, either. However, the acceptance that the government would lie only allows us to look at any given piece of information and ask "did they lie". If we find they did, that in turn enables to ask "why did they lie". This pattern is hard to find. We generally see people start by assuming they did lie, and somehow concluding that because they lied, it must/i] be for one specific reason (i.e. they were somehow in on it) and the only remaining step is to interpret the available data so that we either discount it or say "it supports this theory". The problem is that these interpretations invariably involve additional factors to be present, but when the critical observer asks "but why aren't these factors there", then the handwaving begins.

I do wonder though at the string of coincidences, failings and downright bullsh*t that we are expected to believe as fact.

I don't agree that there's all that much bull that we're accepted to believe as fact, rather that there's a number of individuals propagating the belief that its bull who are being taken at face value, rather than being subjected to the same standard of scrutiny as the officials and their findings.

Yes, there were failings. Some were unavoidable. Some were due to the realities of the day. Some are hard to comprehend in a post-911 world, but we always have to remember to try and analyse things based on what the actors knew at the time. If we can show they must have known something they shouldn't have been able to know, then we've something interesting. Otherwise, its a case of misapplying hindsight.

For example - we know today that if you hijack a plane, you've got a massive flying bomb. Thus, if you are on a plane tomorrow and it gets hijacked, the passengers are likely to risk life and limb if they fear they are pawns in another 911. Prior to 911, however, the mentality was different - it was more like being in a bank being robbed. Your best chance of getting out alive was to do exactly what was asked of you. Ironically, 911 has done more to destroy the "industry" of hijacking planes and holding the passengers to ransom for political demands then anything else could have.

Yes, there are hard-to-answer - or indeed unanswerable - questions. Any complex, chaotic set of events will inevitably result in such things. So we need to be somewhat flexible. That cascade of falling, molten, something from one of the two towers is a good example. Yes, it could be something suspicious. Or it might not be. That it happened away from the collapse event (physically and timewise) suggests the latter. That it occurred on a floor with a large UPS, in the corner where the UPS was installed....suggests that it might be connected to the UPS. Sure, it might still be suspicious, but not to the point where we must explain it to the last detail. Rather, there should be evidence to show that it is suspicious, or else we can assume that its most probably connected to a failure of the massive array of lead-acid batteries. If it had happened seconds before collapse...it would be a different story, but it didn't. Same for most of the reports of explosions. I provided some links in the BIG thread on this subject, where there were comments about explosions at the Madrid collapse, and at the collapse of a large crane at some point. Its a common description used for large, sudden "bangs"....which are not uncommon occurrences in large office fires.

Despite what many believe, I still don't rule out the possibility that there's some big, dark secret about 911 that we haven't yet found. If I was told "there is one and you have to guess what it was", I would say that Al Qaeda were a US-Intelligence front, and that the US Intelligence collapsed the towers and WTC7 by controlling a bunch of terrorists in caves to recruit dedicated believers and set them underway, resulting in big friggin' planes smacking into big friggin' buildings.

If I had to pick a flaw in the reasons the towers fell, I'd side with the ex-NIST fire expert who suggested that the NIST findings didn't look at culpability in terms of how the building was built (most notably fireproofing standards) and that it would have survived longer before failure had it been otherwise.

Even then, I'm open to other possibilities...if credible evidence is produced. To date, I've yet to see it.

bonkey

whiterebel wrote:

Sorry Bonkey on this one you are wrong. 7 of the people listed on the FBIs website as hijackers are alive and well and had nothing to do with 9/11. Last time I looked about a year ago, they were still on it.

Then I'd be very interested in knowing which 7, and how you know they're alive.

bonkey

banquo wrote:

The only thing that I couldn't shake was the collapse of the towers, motive and plausibility aside. Debunking911.com does a pretty thorough job in explaining how the towers collapsed, I strongly recommend it. But, since I'm not really qualified to understand most of the explanation I can only take their word for it and look instead at the evidence surrounding it that I do understand, motive and plausability, of which there seems to be none.

So, I'm out. While very convincing at first, i.e. the towers really do look like a controlled demolition, it just doesn't stand up to investigation.

While reading this, one thing sprang to mind...

While its (probably) bad form to be pimping another board-site here, the JREF Conspiracy Forum is worth a visit. While there's some godawful drek there, there are an amount of very talented, dedicated individuals with some scary qualifications who produce some fantastic work. A handful of the "core" posters there put together hugely detailed research (written form far more than youTubism), more looking at the specific claims of the major "alternate exaplanation" crew then in defence of the NIST report.

For example, one of the guys (R. Mackey) who is, if memory serves) a NASA guy, put together a 100+ page PDF critiquing one section of Griffin's "Debunking the Debunkers" work. Its well done, complete with references to sources, critical analysis of the arguments as well as of the science, and to be honest, shows the whole thing to be as dodgy as can be.

The content on that forum is of variable quality...but when the likes of Mark Roberts (Gravy) or Mackey put toghether their external work....its an eye opener in terms of questioning the quality of the so-called "truther" research.

Ashla, please get help.

Ashla

meglome wrote:

I assume you were taking the weewee about the holograms? please tell me you were.

NO! when you look at the planes, they went through the towers like butter, and talking about holograms, we'll be seeing a few more in years to come. Keep a keen eye, and you'll see.They are so clever these days, you wont believe your eyes. They deceive you.

Ciaran500

Ashla wrote:

NO! when you look at the planes, they went through the towers like butter, and talking about holograms, we'll be seeing a few more in years to come. Keep a keen eye, and you'll see.They are so clever these days, you wont believe your eyes. They deceive you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

whiterebel

bonkey wrote:

Then I'd be very interested in knowing which 7, and how you know they're alive.

BBC and most of the news agencies reported it pretty quickly. All mid-eastern, IIRC, mostly Saudis. Their identities used, but its been proved they weren't involved. BBC should still have it in their archives. What i'd like to know is why the FBI still identified innocent people at least 5 years later.

Ashla

humanji wrote:

Considering terrorists bombed the WTF before, it would be the first thought that came to everyones mind.

The Bushes did it! first and last?? They are your TERROR! coming home to roost! so they can impose on you, fake terrorist laws, which they fear you into. And you believe them HaHaHaHaHa