Thursday, December 22, 2005
9/11 Re-examined
On December 18, 2005 I did a short post titled Tinfoil Hat Time about some of the conspiracy theories out there surrounding the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That day Bill Giltner, one of our fellow travelers here at GM in the BB, took me to task for treating the subject in such a casual manner. Bill feels (and in retrospect, I agree) that to just throw out a "grab bag" of alternate theories to what happened on 9/11 really does a disservice to the serious nature of the subject and the quite compelling evidence that suggests we haven't been given the whole truth.
So in the interest of presenting all views on the subject, maintaining an open yet skeptical mind and hopefully encouraging some interesting discussion on the topic I've asked Bill to do a guest post here. Thanks Bill!
Godless Mom has offered me a guest post here. My name is Bill Giltner, and I normally blog at http://bgtruth.blogspot.com.
I apologize that I don't have my blog organized as a reference work/web page. That's a topic for another day.
As a way to manage a "9/11" search tag for blogging, I would encourage you to use the following technorati tag (09/11/2001) to access my recent work, and to include in your own 9/11 blogging activities.
I had envisioned a very long post (not ready yet) that I'd like to do. Wanting to get a quick entry out, I did this short one.
I'm interested in engaging with you, the reader, in the following somewhat limited way. I'll have no time for your comments if:
1) You have not studied the "anomalies" of 9/11 and don't realize the the 9/11 Commission was a Cover Up Commission.
2) You want to disparage, as kooky, questions about whether the one or more of the four identified passenger planes, did in fact crash on 9/11 as claimed.
3) You won't acknowledge the prima facie evidence that WTC 1,2, and 7 were brought down by something other than the impact of the planes and fire.
I'm not saying I know what happened with each plane and each deceased passenger, but the evidence is dubious. If you pick up any of the a hand-full of books in the mainstream, you can get up to speed in a few hours on the above.
If you follow this link, which leads to the book "9/11 Revealed", at Amazon, you'll also see how mixed (high approval / low approval) the reviews of books like this can be. I have several reasons to cite this example. I think the controversy shown is representative of the nature of disagreements among researchers. If you study this, and others like it throughout the Internet, I would submit that Godless Mom's original characterization of the debate about 9/11 as being evenly divided pro/con conspiracy stuff is just wholly misleading. Seeing the blog entry say that certainly irked me to comment.
Rather than evenly divided, it is the case that those who have studied what seems like the best evidence and commentary are firmly on the side that the US Govt. and 9/11 Commission is lying about a broad spectrum of the evidence.
In summary I would say that there's a fascinating world of characters, web sites, Truth Events, etc. out there in the 9/11 Truth World. Before I discuss further any of those details, I curious to see if we can get a broad agreement on the above.
Here's my short recommended reading list:
Webster Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror
David Ray Griffin, New Pearl Harbor
D R Griffin, 9/11 Commission: Ommissions and Distortions
Mike Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon
I'm not so much of a Ruppert fan these days, but the book stands on it's own.
Thanks for sharing your space, GM!
So in the interest of presenting all views on the subject, maintaining an open yet skeptical mind and hopefully encouraging some interesting discussion on the topic I've asked Bill to do a guest post here. Thanks Bill!
Godless Mom has offered me a guest post here. My name is Bill Giltner, and I normally blog at http://bgtruth.blogspot.com.
I apologize that I don't have my blog organized as a reference work/web page. That's a topic for another day.
As a way to manage a "9/11" search tag for blogging, I would encourage you to use the following technorati tag (09/11/2001) to access my recent work, and to include in your own 9/11 blogging activities.
I had envisioned a very long post (not ready yet) that I'd like to do. Wanting to get a quick entry out, I did this short one.
I'm interested in engaging with you, the reader, in the following somewhat limited way. I'll have no time for your comments if:
1) You have not studied the "anomalies" of 9/11 and don't realize the the 9/11 Commission was a Cover Up Commission.
2) You want to disparage, as kooky, questions about whether the one or more of the four identified passenger planes, did in fact crash on 9/11 as claimed.
3) You won't acknowledge the prima facie evidence that WTC 1,2, and 7 were brought down by something other than the impact of the planes and fire.
I'm not saying I know what happened with each plane and each deceased passenger, but the evidence is dubious. If you pick up any of the a hand-full of books in the mainstream, you can get up to speed in a few hours on the above.
If you follow this link, which leads to the book "9/11 Revealed", at Amazon, you'll also see how mixed (high approval / low approval) the reviews of books like this can be. I have several reasons to cite this example. I think the controversy shown is representative of the nature of disagreements among researchers. If you study this, and others like it throughout the Internet, I would submit that Godless Mom's original characterization of the debate about 9/11 as being evenly divided pro/con conspiracy stuff is just wholly misleading. Seeing the blog entry say that certainly irked me to comment.
Rather than evenly divided, it is the case that those who have studied what seems like the best evidence and commentary are firmly on the side that the US Govt. and 9/11 Commission is lying about a broad spectrum of the evidence.
In summary I would say that there's a fascinating world of characters, web sites, Truth Events, etc. out there in the 9/11 Truth World. Before I discuss further any of those details, I curious to see if we can get a broad agreement on the above.
Here's my short recommended reading list:
Webster Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror
David Ray Griffin, New Pearl Harbor
D R Griffin, 9/11 Commission: Ommissions and Distortions
Mike Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon
I'm not so much of a Ruppert fan these days, but the book stands on it's own.
Thanks for sharing your space, GM!
posted by GodlessMom, 6:51 AM
23 Comments:
GodlessMom said:
Posted at 10:15 AM
GreatSheElephant said:
I'm curious about the statement regarding the plane disappearing into the Pentagon. I've seen pictures of plane wreckage inside the Pentagon and have read supposedly independent eye witness reports of the plane hitting it. Of course they were on the web so may not be genuine.
Posted at 10:21 AM
Underground Logician said:
Well...I am extremely skeptical, GM and Bill. The conclusion that one comes to is that Bush, or his cronies, are geniuses to concoct something so devilish for the purpose of getting rich, gaining power, etc. It would seem impossible being that the left has always declared that Bush is an idiot. I'm not opposed to the possibility of a conspiracy to exist, knowing the potential for evil in the human heart. It is, just as probable, that a conspiracy exists to manipulate the evidence to create a conspiracy. No doubt, if one loves the thrill that conspiracy theories bring, this one is a doozy.
I'm sorry; this is way over the top for me.
I'm sorry; this is way over the top for me.
Posted at 1:17 PM
BarbaraFromCalifornia said:
Without commenting on the substance of the issues raised, I would like to say, godlessmom, that you are a very classy lady, who truly wants every voice, regardless of agreement, to be heard.
Wishing you and your family a Happy Holiday.
Wishing you and your family a Happy Holiday.
Posted at 1:27 PM
GodlessMom said:
Greatsheelephant, I've seen those photos too. They definitely raise some questions regarding the reports that there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon crash site. Bill, do you have any info on this?
UL, There is absolutely nothing wrong with skepticism, it is very healthy. I agree, the whole thing feels very over the top, but I would argue that it is the "over the top" nature of the whole thing which prevents people from even looking at some of the questions raised. The conclusion you have drawn regarding the Bush administration and a conspiracy to gain wealth and power is certainly the most popular theory but I personally don't feel it is the only conclusion one can draw from looking at the evidence. (Bill may differ from me in this respect, I don't know.)
I think, as with most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. There are some really strange things that just don't add up and I personally am curious to know more about them.
Barbara, Thank you for the wonderful holiday wish. I hope you and your family have a beautiful season also.
UL, There is absolutely nothing wrong with skepticism, it is very healthy. I agree, the whole thing feels very over the top, but I would argue that it is the "over the top" nature of the whole thing which prevents people from even looking at some of the questions raised. The conclusion you have drawn regarding the Bush administration and a conspiracy to gain wealth and power is certainly the most popular theory but I personally don't feel it is the only conclusion one can draw from looking at the evidence. (Bill may differ from me in this respect, I don't know.)
I think, as with most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. There are some really strange things that just don't add up and I personally am curious to know more about them.
Barbara, Thank you for the wonderful holiday wish. I hope you and your family have a beautiful season also.
Posted at 2:20 PM
TLP said:
*sigh* It seems that YOU, and YOU alone know what happened.
Sorry, but I've read all this junk, and I'm a liberal Democrat, not a BUSH lover at all, and I think that you are wrong. Do I want to write a book about why I think you are wrong? No. You wouldn't believe anything other than what you believe already.
Godless Mom, you are a class act.
Sorry, but I've read all this junk, and I'm a liberal Democrat, not a BUSH lover at all, and I think that you are wrong. Do I want to write a book about why I think you are wrong? No. You wouldn't believe anything other than what you believe already.
Godless Mom, you are a class act.
Posted at 2:51 PM
Unknown said:
tan lucy pez,
I respect your comments. Since I'm striking out in achieving any credence with you, I would hope that Godless Mom or others could maintain your interest.
I am open to finding a way that I could express myself that would be more palatable. This has never been about me, or about me claiming some sort of superior intellect. I have not succeded in my quest if what you report as your reaction is my effect on people.
I'm not asking you to believe anything that I say. I am asking you if knowing the truth for youself is worth investing the money in one of any of the good books, giving yourself a chance of understanding how much you are missing?
In a follow up, I'll discuss what I'm hoping wll come out of 9/11 Truth awareness. For now, I'm begging for each of you to review and help expose the truth.
I respect your comments. Since I'm striking out in achieving any credence with you, I would hope that Godless Mom or others could maintain your interest.
I am open to finding a way that I could express myself that would be more palatable. This has never been about me, or about me claiming some sort of superior intellect. I have not succeded in my quest if what you report as your reaction is my effect on people.
I'm not asking you to believe anything that I say. I am asking you if knowing the truth for youself is worth investing the money in one of any of the good books, giving yourself a chance of understanding how much you are missing?
In a follow up, I'll discuss what I'm hoping wll come out of 9/11 Truth awareness. For now, I'm begging for each of you to review and help expose the truth.
Posted at 3:18 PM
Unknown said:
Godless Mom wrote:
I've been giving this subject some thought and I've got a couple of questions for you.
Regarding the WTC 7 building, what reason would there be to bring that particular building down?
It seems that it would take dozens if not hundreds of people to pull something like this off (making leaks of the plan more likely.) Would you agree or is there credible evidence that it could have been done by much fewer people?
1)
I have read spectulation about WTC7: what role it played, whether it was intended to fall closer to the time that the other towers fell and the operation malfunctioned. I don't have any strong ideas. I'm open to your ideas, and others, but my main focus has been trying to make informed opinions about 9/11 which demonstrate that the Administration Story should be challendged as ludricous. We have plenty of evidence to support that.
2)
Excellent Question (how many conspiritors?)
This question requires more of a treatment than I can begin to create right now. Even after a thorough treatment, I'm not sure that the ones who have their minds closed to the likely reality would be fazed by the extremely compelling facts and implications.
I've been giving this subject some thought and I've got a couple of questions for you.
Regarding the WTC 7 building, what reason would there be to bring that particular building down?
It seems that it would take dozens if not hundreds of people to pull something like this off (making leaks of the plan more likely.) Would you agree or is there credible evidence that it could have been done by much fewer people?
1)
I have read spectulation about WTC7: what role it played, whether it was intended to fall closer to the time that the other towers fell and the operation malfunctioned. I don't have any strong ideas. I'm open to your ideas, and others, but my main focus has been trying to make informed opinions about 9/11 which demonstrate that the Administration Story should be challendged as ludricous. We have plenty of evidence to support that.
2)
Excellent Question (how many conspiritors?)
This question requires more of a treatment than I can begin to create right now. Even after a thorough treatment, I'm not sure that the ones who have their minds closed to the likely reality would be fazed by the extremely compelling facts and implications.
Posted at 3:52 PM
Unknown said:
Greatsheelephant,
There's much to say about the Pentagon and Plane wreckage.
I don't expect anyone to believe this simply because I say so. However, for brevity sake, let me just state my opinion about what is/is not true.
By the way, this area is much more difficult to analyze and provide commentary on than WTC.
1) No passenger plane of the scale claimed by the govt. impacted the Pentagon.
2) I'm fully aware that supposed witnesses have provided supposed eye-witness testimony that supports the passenger plane story. I'm fully aware the dubious light that this puts me in, as well as anyone who believes what I state in #1.
3) I'm fully aware death certifications were made on bodies (body parts) indicated to have been in the wreckage at the Pentagon from the specificed passenger plane.
I certainly don't claim to be an expert on any of this. It is unbelievably confusing.
I think DNA IDs as well as other forensic methods were claimed to be used. I fully expect you to think people who believe as I do are "barking moonbats". Our theories imply that are a bunch of people were either killed somewhere else, or that some / all of the passengers on that flight are still alive, or that some of names on the flight roster were fake. I don't claim to know at all what really happened.
I don't think my theory sounds crazy because it flys in the face of the evidence. Rather, I think we are forced into seemlying impossible explanations because access to the facts of the case have been so thoroughly seeled off from public access.
I have to say, trying to make sense of the Pentagon is not my fav. thing to do.
There's much to say about the Pentagon and Plane wreckage.
I don't expect anyone to believe this simply because I say so. However, for brevity sake, let me just state my opinion about what is/is not true.
By the way, this area is much more difficult to analyze and provide commentary on than WTC.
1) No passenger plane of the scale claimed by the govt. impacted the Pentagon.
2) I'm fully aware that supposed witnesses have provided supposed eye-witness testimony that supports the passenger plane story. I'm fully aware the dubious light that this puts me in, as well as anyone who believes what I state in #1.
3) I'm fully aware death certifications were made on bodies (body parts) indicated to have been in the wreckage at the Pentagon from the specificed passenger plane.
I certainly don't claim to be an expert on any of this. It is unbelievably confusing.
I think DNA IDs as well as other forensic methods were claimed to be used. I fully expect you to think people who believe as I do are "barking moonbats". Our theories imply that are a bunch of people were either killed somewhere else, or that some / all of the passengers on that flight are still alive, or that some of names on the flight roster were fake. I don't claim to know at all what really happened.
I don't think my theory sounds crazy because it flys in the face of the evidence. Rather, I think we are forced into seemlying impossible explanations because access to the facts of the case have been so thoroughly seeled off from public access.
I have to say, trying to make sense of the Pentagon is not my fav. thing to do.
Posted at 4:11 PM
Unknown said:
==============================
Underground Logician said...
Well...I am extremely skeptical, GM and Bill. The conclusion that one comes to is that Bush, or his cronies, are geniuses to concoct something so devilish for the purpose of getting rich, gaining power, etc. It would seem impossible being that the left has always declared that Bush is an idiot. I'm not opposed to the possibility of a conspiracy to exist, knowing the potential for evil in the human heart. It is, just as probable, that a conspiracy exists to manipulate the evidence to create a conspiracy. No doubt, if one loves the thrill that conspiracy theories bring, this one is a doozy.
I'm sorry; this is way over the top for me.
1:17 PM
=================
I appreciate that you are sharing your honest thoughts and reactions with us. I respect your viewpoint.
By the way I'm not saying Bush masterminded anything himself. I think rather than go back and forth about the logic you are applying to 9/11 (Who inside our govt. had the expertise and the skill and the leeway to pull off such a master false flag operation), I would just ask you to "wade in" to the evidence and how it is being covered up. If you study the documented reports, you'll realise quickly, regardless of who did it, there is enormous evidence of cover up by the 9/11 Commission. MSM is also participating in the cover up.
Underground Logician said...
Well...I am extremely skeptical, GM and Bill. The conclusion that one comes to is that Bush, or his cronies, are geniuses to concoct something so devilish for the purpose of getting rich, gaining power, etc. It would seem impossible being that the left has always declared that Bush is an idiot. I'm not opposed to the possibility of a conspiracy to exist, knowing the potential for evil in the human heart. It is, just as probable, that a conspiracy exists to manipulate the evidence to create a conspiracy. No doubt, if one loves the thrill that conspiracy theories bring, this one is a doozy.
I'm sorry; this is way over the top for me.
1:17 PM
=================
I appreciate that you are sharing your honest thoughts and reactions with us. I respect your viewpoint.
By the way I'm not saying Bush masterminded anything himself. I think rather than go back and forth about the logic you are applying to 9/11 (Who inside our govt. had the expertise and the skill and the leeway to pull off such a master false flag operation), I would just ask you to "wade in" to the evidence and how it is being covered up. If you study the documented reports, you'll realise quickly, regardless of who did it, there is enormous evidence of cover up by the 9/11 Commission. MSM is also participating in the cover up.
Posted at 4:28 PM
Underground Logician said:
BG:
I'm always interested in evidence. It's the interpretation of it that I think where care needs to be taken. I am open. I don't want to prejudge other than I know, especially from what floats around inside of me, that the potential exists to skew and interpret evidence to fit our preconceptions. I'm not assuming you to be doing this intentionally. Yet, since I don't know you, I'd need to see evidence from both sides. For instance, I know of the hypothesis that in order for the towers to fall, there had to be explosive charges strategically placed in order for them to implode as they did. It seems plausible; this same theory is posited for the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murah building. Yet, I know there are arguments for the other side as well. The architect who designed the twin towers sees the plausibility of the weight of the top floors collapsing onto the floor beneath and so forth until there's just a pile of rubble.
Now, do I think that there are people in this world capable of concocting a plan like this? Yes, and it seems plausible that there exists an oligarchy of some substance and means that can manipulate things for their own benefit. It would take more than that which leads me to conjecture.
I'm always interested in evidence. It's the interpretation of it that I think where care needs to be taken. I am open. I don't want to prejudge other than I know, especially from what floats around inside of me, that the potential exists to skew and interpret evidence to fit our preconceptions. I'm not assuming you to be doing this intentionally. Yet, since I don't know you, I'd need to see evidence from both sides. For instance, I know of the hypothesis that in order for the towers to fall, there had to be explosive charges strategically placed in order for them to implode as they did. It seems plausible; this same theory is posited for the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murah building. Yet, I know there are arguments for the other side as well. The architect who designed the twin towers sees the plausibility of the weight of the top floors collapsing onto the floor beneath and so forth until there's just a pile of rubble.
Now, do I think that there are people in this world capable of concocting a plan like this? Yes, and it seems plausible that there exists an oligarchy of some substance and means that can manipulate things for their own benefit. It would take more than that which leads me to conjecture.
Posted at 6:18 PM
said:
Okkkkkaaaaaayyyy... so you won't talk to anyone who doesn't agree with your theories (which sound a little nutty). How are you going to convert others to these theories if you won't discuss them honestly? OK then: I believe that god is a big, giant cream pie. At the end of the world, she'll explode from being overbaked by the sun, and cover the earth in filling. NOPE: not a word from you. Buy it, or dont' buy it.
Posted at 7:01 PM
Lila said:
I'll go look at the links. I admit that I'm intrigued by all of this, though very skeptical (and like my mama, TLP, I'm a W-hater and a "lefty").
Godlessmom, you're great!
BG, thank you for your enthusiasm.
Godlessmom, you're great!
BG, thank you for your enthusiasm.
Posted at 10:51 PM
GreatSheElephant said:
BG, can you summarise your evidence for your assertion #1 about the Pentagon? It seems to me that right now you are saying that no passenger plane hit the Pentagon because no passenger plane hit the Pentagon which doesn't really stand up as a statement of fact.
My feeling, based on some reading during 2002 and 2003 is that what the US government told us happened is by and large what did happen but I am very prepared to believe that they knew exactly in advance what was about to occur and let it go right ahead because it suited them politically.
My feeling, based on some reading during 2002 and 2003 is that what the US government told us happened is by and large what did happen but I am very prepared to believe that they knew exactly in advance what was about to occur and let it go right ahead because it suited them politically.
Posted at 8:55 AM
Unknown said:
BG, can you summarise your evidence for your assertion #1 about the Pentagon? It seems to me that right now you are saying that no passenger plane hit the Pentagon because no passenger plane hit the Pentagon which doesn't really stand up as a statement of fact.
My feeling, based on some reading during 2002 and 2003 is that what the US government told us happened is by and large what did happen but I am very prepared to believe that they knew exactly in advance what was about to occur and let it go right ahead because it suited them politically.
-----------------------------
There are extremely convincing presenatations about the lack of a passenger plane hitting the Pentagon. I can share links to these. However, presenting the evidence and the context is much trickier at the Pentagon than it is with the crash of the "let's roll" plane and the towers.
I don't think one should just look at the Pentagon presentations and be convinced with a good bit of context and supporting evidence. This is true to a heightened degree since there seems to be so much eye witness testimony to refute at the Pentagon.
I'm not sure when I'll get the Pentagon discussion that I'm promissing here. I hope to have it next week.
I wasn't expecting anyone to be convinced by what I was saying at my post here. As I have pursued 9/11 truth, I have found it really helpful to try to understand the bottom line contensions that "conspiracy theoretists" were making and be able to compare and contrast the implications.
This kind of clarity is best obtained by getting a book with a complete treatment, rather than blog posts or even web sites.
My feeling, based on some reading during 2002 and 2003 is that what the US government told us happened is by and large what did happen but I am very prepared to believe that they knew exactly in advance what was about to occur and let it go right ahead because it suited them politically.
-----------------------------
There are extremely convincing presenatations about the lack of a passenger plane hitting the Pentagon. I can share links to these. However, presenting the evidence and the context is much trickier at the Pentagon than it is with the crash of the "let's roll" plane and the towers.
I don't think one should just look at the Pentagon presentations and be convinced with a good bit of context and supporting evidence. This is true to a heightened degree since there seems to be so much eye witness testimony to refute at the Pentagon.
I'm not sure when I'll get the Pentagon discussion that I'm promissing here. I hope to have it next week.
I wasn't expecting anyone to be convinced by what I was saying at my post here. As I have pursued 9/11 truth, I have found it really helpful to try to understand the bottom line contensions that "conspiracy theoretists" were making and be able to compare and contrast the implications.
This kind of clarity is best obtained by getting a book with a complete treatment, rather than blog posts or even web sites.
Posted at 7:55 AM
Unknown said:
I found a little more time to add more about the Pentagon.
I did a quick Google search to refresh my memory of what is readily available on the internet. I found this:
The Snopes.com Pentagon debunk
Here's the Debunk to the Snopes Debunk
The 9/11 Truth movement has made enough of an impression, that the US State Dept. put up web pages to try to quiet the rumors.
I imagine gurus like Karen Hughes thought up the idea of posting pages like this, having no idea that the some rumors are anything but "Urban Legend".
You can look at evidence like this all day: claims and counter claims. Until you do you own detailed review, and see how much work, I mean real discovery work, that any legitimate 9/11 Commission would have performed, and see in fact just how much they avoided, how much they covered up, you'll never have anything more than a he said / she said shallow understanding.
I did a quick Google search to refresh my memory of what is readily available on the internet. I found this:
The Snopes.com Pentagon debunk
Here's the Debunk to the Snopes Debunk
The 9/11 Truth movement has made enough of an impression, that the US State Dept. put up web pages to try to quiet the rumors.
I imagine gurus like Karen Hughes thought up the idea of posting pages like this, having no idea that the some rumors are anything but "Urban Legend".
You can look at evidence like this all day: claims and counter claims. Until you do you own detailed review, and see how much work, I mean real discovery work, that any legitimate 9/11 Commission would have performed, and see in fact just how much they avoided, how much they covered up, you'll never have anything more than a he said / she said shallow understanding.
Posted at 9:02 AM
Unknown said:
Correcting the State Dept Web Page link from the last comment.
Posted at 9:04 AM
Unknown said:
Here's a comment meant to convey a little levity for Christmas. Have you heard about David Letterman and this woman? (Read news in third column of linked article.)
I respect that many of you may believe so-called 9/11 Truth is as looney as this demented soul. Honestly I'm surprised that the "cover up" psyops people haven't cooped this womans by having her put 9/11 Conspiracies in her court briefs, as another way to discredit 9/11 truth tellers.
I respect that many of you may believe so-called 9/11 Truth is as looney as this demented soul. Honestly I'm surprised that the "cover up" psyops people haven't cooped this womans by having her put 9/11 Conspiracies in her court briefs, as another way to discredit 9/11 truth tellers.
Posted at 9:39 AM
The Lazy Iguana said:
There is an engineering answer for WTC7. When the towers went down, the foundations of all the other buildings were severely weakened. WTC7 was fairly tall, and heavy, so it came down.
I have seen controled demolitions. What usually happens is that the charges bring down the center of the building, pulling the sides in towards the center. This makes one nice neat pile of rubble.
The roof on WTC7 is straight all the way down. This is simply not how controled demolition works.
Also, dont you think someone would have noticed a bunch of dudes in hard hats using steel cable to tie support coloums together, cutting re-bar, drilling holes, and placing charges? And all the wires and stuff running all over the place?
I have seen controled demolitions. What usually happens is that the charges bring down the center of the building, pulling the sides in towards the center. This makes one nice neat pile of rubble.
The roof on WTC7 is straight all the way down. This is simply not how controled demolition works.
Also, dont you think someone would have noticed a bunch of dudes in hard hats using steel cable to tie support coloums together, cutting re-bar, drilling holes, and placing charges? And all the wires and stuff running all over the place?
Posted at 6:34 PM
GodlessMom said:
Hey Iguana, go to reopen911.org and view the clip on WTC7. Watch the entire thing, the last part of the clip is a different view of the collapse where the center of the building collapses and pulls the sides inward. Is this similar to what you have seen in controlled demolition?
Posted at 9:19 PM
Unknown said:
Thanks for your comment to Lazy..., GM
People like Lazy are either hopelessly dense, or they have an agenda for lying.
Here's more for those of you who are willing to open your eyes:
link back to my blog that links to a large free video.
People like Lazy are either hopelessly dense, or they have an agenda for lying.
Here's more for those of you who are willing to open your eyes:
link back to my blog that links to a large free video.
Posted at 7:31 AM
The Lazy Iguana said:
Dense? No, I just do not think that a conspiricy of this magnatude could be pulled off without a single person who worked in these buildings hearing or seeing something.
Or maybe you just think that Bush is a super evil genius, and that the whole thing was planned from the start.
Was American Airlines in on the plot too?
Or maybe you just think that Bush is a super evil genius, and that the whole thing was planned from the start.
Was American Airlines in on the plot too?
Posted at 10:16 PM
Saur♥Kraut said:
I'm with Lazy Iguana, I think that calling him dense is more than dense on your part. After all, he didn't attack you in any way - he just gave his unbiased viewpoint. I happen to agree with him, I'll admit. But my point is that it's atrociously rude and highly immature to attack someone through name calling.
To my point of view, you have just shot yourself in the foot.
To my point of view, you have just shot yourself in the foot.
Posted at 7:46 AM
About Me
- Name: GodlessMom
- Location: Houston, Texas, United States
I was born and raised in Salt Lake City, Utah. I've been happily married for ten years to someone I've known since I was eleven years old. We are the parents of a wonderful four year old girl.
My links
Previous Entries
- The rising of the sun and the running of the deer.
- "The Greater the Secrecy the Deeper the Corruption."
- Tinfoil Hat Time
- Victory for McCain
- Bible study according to GodlessMom
- Furby Frenzy
- Brain drain
- Imagine
- Family Fun
- Follow that money to the corrupted absolute power
Archive
- current
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
Regarding the WTC 7 building, what reason would there be to bring that particular building down?
It seems that it would take dozens if not hundreds of people to pull something like this off (making leaks of the plan more likely.) Would you agree or is there credible evidence that it could have been done by much fewer people?