Could Vancouver 2010 be the next 9/11?

[Finnster]

I'll prolly regret this later but...

The biggest flaw I see in these conspiracy theories is that they assume there is a binary choice in the versions of truth. There is the public "truth" A, and the "real" truth B. That's it. The theorists then attack A as a proxy for proving B, because ultimately B is poorly supported by evidence and logic and cannot stand under its own weight.

This is the same strategy of argument that exists for anti-evolutionists, and even global warming deniers to a degree. Oh look, we think there should be more transitional fossils, ergo creationism/Intelligent Design is true. Usually the weaker the counter argument, the more vicious the attacks.
No no, truth doesn't work that way.


So, please humor me in explaining exactly how this alter 9/11 scenario occurred?

How long did it take to plan? How many people were involved? Bush was in office 8mos by 911, did he have enough time to order up and sneak all those explosives in there? Let alone plan out the massive operation, all of which would need to work flawlessly unless the biggest treason and lie in the nation's history be exposed... He was pretty busy passing tax cuts for the wealthy then.
Was the 1992 WTC bombing by terrorists a clever rouse or only co-incidence? How did they recruit all these thousands of people into mass murder of their fellow countrymen? How did they keep them silent?

What was the end goals? War? Really? This was the easiest way of bringing that about? They couldn't figure out some simpler plan?
Lastly, you are staking this on a level of competency of gov't officials, politicians and other middling humans that I'm not sure anyone possesses, let alone George W F'ing Bush, probably the dumbest and most incompetent president we've had in this nations history (including you Millard Fillmore.) A serious weak link in a chain if there ever was one.

These too are gov't officials who have since let two idiot terrorists on planes with explosives, who also only failed due to their shear stupidity and incompetence, not because they were stopped by people who knew them to be coming. I think you are giving people far too much credit.

So please, try to make a sensible argument, esp w/o insulting people. I don't think there is one to be made. Evidence needs to be stronger than "d00d, no way, that $hits crazy." Prove that steel heated to many hundreds of degrees retains a necc strength rating. Prove that a truss structure can withstand the massive weight of a 40 story building falling on it and not fail w/o explosives. Show how such explosives can be rigged throughout a 110 floor building and no one notice all the wires and charges or anything. How much is actually needed btw? Where was the guy w/ the timer watching and setting them off?
You need to be able to better explain every shred of "planted" evidence, account for every act of deception, every person in the massive chain of deceit in a way that is at least plausible to a reasonable person.
In your own words please, not some kooky utube vid or some CnP from some nutty website. Of course, I don't mean all in one post, but at least something better than the nothing you've put forth so far.

[_paralyzed_]

Demolition is taught at colleges. I haven't taken the classes. I can't give you technical data or demolition theory. I can't make an educated formal argument. I can tell you that it is simply not possible for the buildings to have fallen the way they did from plane impacts and the subsequent fire. Every scenario has been tried in controlled environments, and that's why there are demolition experts that are licensed and accredited and very strictly regulated. Ask a demolitions expert, see what they say.

If I don't know something, I say "IMO" or "IIRC". I make it a point to either know what I'm talking about or make it clear that I don't.

My conspiracy theory lies more toward the owner of the building, who not only made out huge in insurance money, but now owns the single most expensive piece of property in North America.

I don't know what happened, I know planes can't make skyscrapers fall into nice neat little piles. Skyscrapers specifically built to withstand an airplane hit, because the erection and demolition of buildings is a science.

Food for thought: Even controlled demolitions go wrong. Is it plausible to you that there were two very controlled falls on the same day right next to each other as a result of a chaotic catastrophe?

[Finnster]

Originally Posted by _paralyzed_

Demolition is taught at colleges. I haven't taken the classes. I can't give you technical data or demolition theory. I can't make an educated formal argument. I can tell you that it is simply not possible for the buildings to have fallen the way they did from plane impacts and the subsequent fire. Every scenario has been tried in controlled environments, and that's why there are demolition experts that are licensed and accredited and very strictly regulated. Ask a demolitions expert, see what they say.

If I don't know something, I say "IMO" or "IIRC". I make it a point to either know what I'm talking about or make it clear that I don't.

My conspiracy theory lies more toward the owner of the building, who not only made out huge in insurance money, but now owns the single most expensive piece of property in North America.

I don't know what happened, I know planes can't make skyscrapers fall into nice neat little piles. Skyscrapers specifically built to withstand an airplane hit, because the erection and demolition of buildings is a science.

Food for thought: Even controlled demolitions go wrong. Is it plausible to you that there were two very controlled falls on the same day right next to each other as a result of a chaotic catastrophe?

With all due respect man, I don't think you have the expertise to say that. Its your opinion that it doesn't seem like the buildings should have fallen like that, but that has little bearing on the actual truth of the matter.

I can't wrap my head around parts of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and how going faster slows the passage of time. That does not mean its not true.

Anyway, my post was more aimed at the OP. But as an example of my point as you were the (un)fortunate one to respond. If it was Silverstein's master plan, how did he get a hold of hundreds of thousands of pounds of explosives, get people to secretly rig them in his building (which 50000 people worked in, and hundreds of tourists visited every day) manage to hijack to 4 separate planes, all the while not getting caught and having enough money left over after the payoffs and materials to make the mass murder worth it? As far as insurance scams go, seems a bit complicated. Really, why bother bombing the pentagon then? One more chance to get caught, and get set on fire and shoved thru a woodchipper by an angry mob.

When looking at the implications and totality of these theories, it just doesn't make any sense.

[zeropointbug]

Originally Posted by Finnster

With all due respect man, I don't think you have the expertise to say that. Its your opinion that it doesn't seem like the buildings should have fallen like that, but that has little bearing on the actual truth of the matter.

I can't wrap my head around parts of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and how going faster slows the passage of time. That does not mean its not true.

This is Newtonian physics were are dealing with here man. Sry, but that is a bad analogy.

Anyway, my post was more aimed at the OP. But as an example of my point as you were the (un)fortunate one to respond. If it was Silverstein's master plan, how did he get a hold of hundreds of thousands of pounds of explosives, get people to secretly rig them in his building (which 50000 people worked in, and hundreds of tourists visited every day) manage to hijack to 4 separate planes, all the while not getting caught and having enough money left over after the payoffs and materials to make the mass murder worth it? As far as insurance scams go, seems a bit complicated. Really, why bother bombing the pentagon then? One more chance to get caught, and get set on fire and shoved thru a woodchipper by an angry mob.

No one said Larry Silverstein was the "master planner". Again, you are asking questions out of the scope of this thread, and are quite frankly, redundant.

When looking at the implications and totality of these theories, it just doesn't make any sense.

So, what makes sense to you about the official theory then? The lies that the government has told you about the terrorists that ended being ALIVE, then they don't care about who did it after they started the war.... or the WMD's that didn't exist after they started the war?

[JThiessen]

Response to the techincal statements only:
The steel did not have to melt to achieve that kind of failure. Jet A fuel burns on its own at @500-600F, but add the heat of whatever other combustibles were present - likely temps were in the low 1000 degrees in places, and potentially higher in others. Those fires burned for what 90 minutes and 120 minutes? That long term heating of the steel would have brought the strength down, likely by half its rated capacity. Combine that with the impact damage, and you have catastrophic failure.

The buildings design is likely what kept them falling basically straight down. They had a grid structure that completely surrounded the exterior of the building (remember the ghostly looking grid structure pics). Those were what resisted the lateral loading of the tower. The vertical loads were supported by an inner structure. And that is what was unique about these towers - neither of the load paths shared duty with each other. So when that one or two floors inner structure finally reached the point that it couldnt hold the weight of the 50 floors above it, it basically pancaked its way down, with the external grid acting almost as a guide. Technically feasible. To have it happend twice is also feasible as the cause of the events was almost identical.

Since there have been links to other sites, here is one on the structural analysis. Very clear and concise IMHO.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[rawfuls]

Originally Posted by JThiessen

Response to the techincal statements only:
The steel did not have to melt to achieve that kind of failure. Jet A fuel burns on its own at @500-600F, but add the heat of whatever other combustibles were present - likely temps were in the low 1000 degrees in places, and potentially higher in others. Those fires burned for what 90 minutes and 120 minutes? That long term heating of the steel would have brought the strength down, likely by half its rated capacity. Combine that with the impact damage, and you have catastrophic failure.

The buildings design is likely what kept them falling basically straight down. They had a grid structure that completely surrounded the exterior of the building (remember the ghostly looking grid structure pics). Those were what resisted the lateral loading of the tower. The vertical loads were supported by an inner structure. And that is what was unique about these towers - neither of the load paths shared duty with each other. So when that one or two floors inner structure finally reached the point that it couldnt hold the weight of the 50 floors above it, it basically pancaked its way down, with the external grid acting almost as a guide. Technically feasible. To have it happend twice is also feasible as the cause of the events was almost identical.

Since there have been links to other sites, here is one on the structural analysis. Very clear and concise IMHO.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Ah, never thought about the fire bringing the steel structure down (in terms of temperature to melt)...

[_paralyzed_]

Holy jebus, why can't I ever be interested in something that is profitable? I've been pouring over articles and videos. I'm ending up with more questions than answers, but learning,always learning....

You level headed guys make a lot of sense. So what do you make of building 7 going down? If anybody can make sense of that to me I am going to have to re-think my entire life. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Inform me.

[JThiessen]

Originally Posted by _paralyzed_

So what do you make of building 7 going down? If anybody can make sense of that to me I am going to have to re-think my entire life. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Inform me.

Please note: the following is an opinion only. Please hide your children.

My take on #7 is that is was a casualty of location. It got hit by debris from one or both towers - but the significant damage likely came due to subsequent structural failure below ground level. You had over a million plus TONS of material falling literally right across the street from it. I dont know about you, but I think there may have been just a little bit of a "thud"......
causing a crater effect that took out the front of #7.

Have you ever seen preparation for a building demo. They work for MONTH's prepping the structure, and laying in charge lines. The sequence of explosions would have been visible in almost ANY of the footage of the buildings coming down. You would have seen a series of them going up the structure, then back down. There were what, 40,000 people that worked in those buildings? And not a one mentioned anything about any "strange" work being done? Pre-Cutting beams in an office environment? Everyone within 3 floors would have known about that.

Finnster eluded to the keep quite aspect. Something of this magnitude could never have been kept secret. If there is one thing I have learned about people, is they cant keep their mouths shut. Only in the movies can something like this occur. Let's see - I'm a criminal mastermind, and I need some minions to execute my plan. I call all my friends, and they call all of theirs....wait, only 40% like it, 50% dont care one way or another, but that pesky 10% that think I am morally the equivelent of Lincpimp's great step dad are a real problem....so to keep with the Hollywood theme, I have to execute them ALL and make it appear natural...wow. Now after the fact, NONE of my loyal minions see that they can make bucko big bucks by telling the real story? Nobody got their toes stepped on, and wants some revenge?
Just too grand of a scale to have been a feasible theory.

[_paralyzed_]

I watched videos over and over again of the tower's collapse. It conicides with NIST findings.

I still don't like building 7. It was "pulled" The owner of the building ordered, "pull it" and it went down. Had it fallen on it's own I can see your crater theory, but there had to be explosives in the building in order to be "pulled", and they surely didn't set those amidst the chaos of that day.

Silverstein stating he ordered the "pull"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2q2mD2HaKA&NR=1

edit:I like PBO's take. The aliens did it! Ahhhhh

[zeropointbug]

Originally Posted by JThiessen

Please note: the following is an opinion only. Please hide your children.

My take on #7 is that is was a casualty of location. It got hit by debris from one or both towers - but the significant damage likely came due to subsequent structural failure below ground level. You had over a million plus TONS of material falling literally right across the street from it. I dont know about you, but I think there may have been just a little bit of a "thud"......
causing a crater effect that took out the front of #7.

You have a valid argument there with there being a 'thud'; each planes strikes were 0.9, and 0.7 on the New York local Seismic activity respectfully... at the time of collapse, each tower had 2.1 and 2.3, but second tower collapsed first. The thing about that though, is that Seismic activity PRECEDED the Towers collapse, and was not due to the buildings momentum impacting the ground.

Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers hit the ground. Asked about these spikes seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated."

"Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion," Lerner-Lam said. "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."

Which would make perfect sense if they were brought down by means of demolition.

Have you ever seen preparation for a building demo. They work for MONTH's prepping the structure, and laying in charge lines. The sequence of explosions would have been visible in almost ANY of the footage of the buildings coming down. You would have seen a series of them going up the structure, then back down. There were what, 40,000 people that worked in those buildings? And not a one mentioned anything about any "strange" work being done? Pre-Cutting beams in an office environment? Everyone within 3 floors would have known about that.

Again, you are right that everyone would know about it, as they were told that there would be complete system power downs for 36 hour periods up to 3 weeks before 9/11. This can be verified and backed up.

Interview with Scott Forbes, an employee of WTC complex, Senior Database Administrator for Fiduciary Trust:

SF: "In my office on the 97th floor in WTC 2 (South Tower), as usual except that myself and a lot of my colleagues were also working the weekend of 9/8 and 9/9."

SF: "Because of a "power down" notified by the Port Authority. Power was being switched off for a 36hr period in the top half of tower and as I work for a Financial Institution and Bank in the Technology Group I was working on the shutdown and eventually the startup of all our systems."

SF: "I suppose at that time I would have been working one weekend in every 6 or 8 weeks, so it was not unheard of. Working in Technology you get used to working 'out of business hours.' I guess what was odd about this weekend was that as all power was going down then all of our systems were being shutdown. This was extreme and unprecedented."

When asked about how many power outages there were since he worked there, he says:

SF: "None in Tower 2 that I was aware of. We had a backup Generator for our Data Center on floor 97 in the event of an unplanned power outage but it had not been used during my time in the company. You have to understand how unprecedented the power down was. To shutdown all of our financial systems, all inter-related and with connections and feeds to may outside vendors and suppliers was a major piece of work. Additionally, the power outage meant that many of the 'ordinary' building features were not operating, such as security locks on doors, cameras, lighting, etc."

When asked about how many floors were powered down during this time:

SF: I can't give you the absolute numbers, but I know it was the 'top half ' of WTC 2, so I'd say from floor 50 or so.

When asked about what the Port Authority-NY/NJ power downs were for:

SF: As far as I recall it was for re-cabling, though I don't remember the wording on official documents or the detail, as I wasn't in the Management Loop.

Finnster eluded to the keep quite aspect. Something of this magnitude could never have been kept secret. If there is one thing I have learned about people, is they cant keep their mouths shut. Only in the movies can something like this occur. Let's see - I'm a criminal mastermind, and I need some minions to execute my plan. I call all my friends, and they call all of theirs....wait, only 40% like it, 50% dont care one way or another, but that pesky 10% that think I am morally the equivelent of Lincpimp's great step dad are a real problem....so to keep with the Hollywood theme, I have to execute them ALL and make it appear natural...wow. Now after the fact, NONE of my loyal minions see that they can make bucko big bucks by telling the real story? Nobody got their toes stepped on, and wants some revenge?
Just too grand of a scale to have been a feasible theory.

Regardless of what you may think can be kept quiet and what not, keep this in mind, 90% of the media companies are owned by 5 Corporations, and those corporations have stakes in many other companies, and there are many (look it up) politicians/royal families (of which all presidents are related), many in high ranking power that have stakes/shares/ownership of these companies and/or media companies.



For the real smoking gun on WTC 7, does the name Barry Jennings ring a bell? He was the emergency worker, head of the department. They were told to evacuate the building before the twin towers were even coming down. However, IIRC, he went back in to make sure everyone was out, and he encountered only one other person, someone who worked there, who said they should get out. As they were moving down the stairs, there was a massive explosion, and the stairs collapsed. He went back up and heard several more explosions if I recall correctly. Anyways, check the link to the video of the interview with Barry Jennings, look him up, he is legit, and 2 years ago, he died from undisclosed circumstances. He was told by media that those were fuel oil tanks exploding, he says he knows what he heard, oils tanks don't blow up with such force, he heard explosions, bombs going off perhaps.

LINKS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxUj6...eature=related

I am not trying to seem cocky like some have suggested, I am just trying to show you the plethora of evidence to a contrary story to the official one. I could go on and on about this subject, and related. I haven't even touched all the slips of the tongue of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc... like why would Bush be sitting in a preschool classroom (reading a book upside down mind you, LOL), have been told that planes hit the Towers and not even move a muscle! Also, when asked by an audience member went through his mind when the towers were hit: he said that when he saw on TV the first tower being hit (before the second one was even hit)... this is simply impossible as the video of the first strike was surfaced the next day, so what was Bush looking at then? Why would Rumsfeld slip up over the plane being shot down over Shanksville? Cheney had the very same slip up as wel. I haven't even mentioned the whole situation going on with "Northern Command" where Cheney had complete control over the 'exercise' at the time about, what do you know! A terrorist attack with planes hitting buildings! Look it up, there was soo much confusion going on with the whole exercise where the planes that were actually headed for the WTC building were noticed, and monitored, "...is this real world or exercise" then they were given specific orders NOT to intercept the planes. Look it up.

Or what about all the video surveillance that was confiscated within 5 mins of the Pentagon being hit! Off the top of my head, there was at least a gas station, hotel, and at least one other one I can't remember what it was that had direct video surveillance pointing in the exact direction of the Pentagon crash, all forcefully confiscated within minutes.


Another tid-bit about the 99 year lease of Silverstein:

One clause in Silverstein Properties' insurance policies for the new WTC holdings soon proved instrumental. Quoting the British Financial Times of September 14, 2001, the American Reporter wrote that ‘ the lease has an all-important escape clause: If the buildings are struck by “an act of terrorism”, the new owners' obligations under the lease are void. As a result, the new owners are not required to make any payments under their lease, but they will be able to collect on the loss of the buildings that collapsed or were otherwise destroyed and damaged in the attacks. ’ [9] Silverstein Properties is still contesting the amount of pay-out due for destruction of the Twin Towers—$3.55 billion for one ‘occurrence’ or $7.1 billion for two ‘occurrences’. The “terrorism” clause in his lease has given Larry Silverstein leverage in negotiating his new deal for the site. [10]

[zeropointbug]

Originally Posted by JThiessen

Response to the techincal statements only:
The steel did not have to melt to achieve that kind of failure. Jet A fuel burns on its own at @500-600F, but add the heat of whatever other combustibles were present - likely temps were in the low 1000 degrees in places, and potentially higher in others. Those fires burned for what 90 minutes and 120 minutes? That long term heating of the steel would have brought the strength down, likely by half its rated capacity. Combine that with the impact damage, and you have catastrophic failure.

Again, Theissen, first, those temperatures MAY be likely in an open air environment, but not in an enclosed area of around 100 feet to the core columns, there is only so much air to fuel the fire, you can't just add other combustibles in that situation and expect the temps to increase. Second, the buildings are over engineered by more than 2 times. Speculating on my part... I am trying to fathom how a jet liner slowed by the outer walls, then the mass in between the plane and the core columns didn't reduce the planes inertia enough for the plane to severe 30% of the core columns... which is outstanding speculation on their part. (9/11 commision report... well if you have ever read that book, it reads like a novel, I kid you not.

The buildings design is likely what kept them falling basically straight down.
What do you mean by that? They DID fall straight down...

They had a grid structure that completely surrounded the exterior of the building (remember the ghostly looking grid structure pics). Those were what resisted the lateral loading of the tower. The vertical loads were supported by an inner structure. And that is what was unique about these towers - neither of the load paths shared duty with each other. So when that one or two floors inner structure finally reached the point that it couldnt hold the weight of the 50 floors above it, it basically pancaked its way down, with the external grid acting almost as a guide. Technically feasible. To have it happend twice is also feasible as the cause of the events was almost identical.

Now just think about what you are saying... the core columns would have to be taken out INSTANTLY floor by floor perfectly timed for the building to come down in a pan cake manner, ANY deviation from that would cause it to topple over. It is impossible for a building with a structure of it's magnitude to fall as virtually free fall speed without some external force removing the massive resistance of the core columns, not even taking into consideration each floors strength (more resistance), then all the internal material (non-load bearing walls, cubicals, furniture, it all adds up). To support the demolition conspiracy, there were rivers of molten steel pouring out where the planes hit the towers. This is most likely what melted the infamous fire truck below the Twin Towers... the truck had the whole front of the truck melted down to a few feet, much like you would see with a Thermite (or Thermate) ignition.

Since there have been links to other sites, here is one on the structural analysis. Very clear and concise IMHO.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

First paragraph there is already a lie, the steel was sent off to China before ANY investigation could even be done, so by reduction, the whole report cannot be trusted. Just reading the rest, it is PACKED full of speculation, they don't even use any math to back up their claim that the resistance from the floors below were minimal compared to the mass coming down on them, and that is what caused a free fall speed. Uh, wait a minute, so Newtonian laws state that when resistance is equal to or less than a force on a object, then suddenly that resistance is magically removed from the equation? Or that it simply disappears at a predetermined point? What happened to equal but opposite reaction? I guess terrorists have a Jehad on the USA, enough that the Laws of Physics simply didn't apply to any of the events on the day of 9/11.

[zeropointbug]

Originally Posted by Finnster

I'll prolly regret this later but...

The biggest flaw I see in these conspiracy theories is that they assume there is a binary choice in the versions of truth. There is the public "truth" A, and the "real" truth B. That's it. The theorists then attack A as a proxy for proving B, because ultimately B is poorly supported by evidence and logic and cannot stand under its own weight.

-How can you say that B is poorly supported by evidence when there is significantly more evidence and motive for truth B. Also, how can you say I was only attacking truth A... I may mention couple things occasionally, but I mostly stick to what I am observing, observation is science, not speculation, which is what truth A is based on, it is, don't deny it. Everything from what happened inside the towers when the planes hit, to the "terrorists" that they blamed that ended up ALIVE.

This is the same strategy of argument that exists for anti-evolutionists, and even global warming deniers to a degree. Oh look, we think there should be more transitional fossils, ergo creationism/Intelligent Design is true. Usually the weaker the counter argument, the more vicious the attacks.
No no, truth doesn't work that way.
This is another argument altogether, but "Global Warming" is a scam as well, the biggest hoax played on society. Why do you think so many scientists had denied it for so long? Then there was a brief acceptance of it, now again, there is worldwide scientific agreement that is was science fraud.

So, please humor me in explaining exactly how this alter 9/11 scenario occurred?

Please don't do that, I cannot answer every question, and obviously I can't...

How long did it take to plan? How many people were involved? Bush was in office 8mos by 911, did he have enough time to order up and sneak all those explosives in there? Let alone plan out the massive operation, all of which would need to work flawlessly unless the biggest treason and lie in the nation's history be exposed... He was pretty busy passing tax cuts for the wealthy then.

Bush, just like any other president is a puppet.

Was the 1992 WTC bombing by terrorists a clever rouse or only co-incidence? How did they recruit all these thousands of people into mass murder of their fellow countrymen? How did they keep them silent?

1993 bombing... what mass murder? Do you know what you're talking about? Not attacking you.

What was the end goals? War? Really? This was the easiest way of bringing that about? They couldn't figure out some simpler plan?
Lastly, you are staking this on a level of competency of gov't officials, politicians and other middling humans that I'm not sure anyone possesses, let alone George W F'ing Bush, probably the dumbest and most incompetent president we've had in this nations history (including you Millard Fillmore.) A serious weak link in a chain if there ever was one.

Again, Bush is a mere puppet, you really think Government FBI, CIA, etc would allow such a stupid human into office if he actually had any power at all? Just think about that.

These too are gov't officials who have since let two idiot terrorists on planes with explosives, who also only failed due to their shear stupidity and incompetence, not because they were stopped by people who knew them to be coming. I think you are giving people far too much credit.

So please, try to make a sensible argument, esp w/o insulting people. I don't think there is one to be made. Evidence needs to be stronger than "d00d, no way, that $hits crazy." Prove that steel heated to many hundreds of degrees retains a necc strength rating. Prove that a truss structure can withstand the massive weight of a 40 story building falling on it and not fail w/o explosives. Show how such explosives can be rigged throughout a 110 floor building and no one notice all the wires and charges or anything. How much is actually needed btw? Where was the guy w/ the timer watching and setting them off?

Again, I can't answer those questions, but it doesn't matter because there is overwhelming evidence for demolition from the mere FACT that there are clean cut steel center columns at ground zero, all cut at angles. There were large pools of molten steel for weeks after they came down under the core structure would have been, in the basement. AS well as there being not Thermite, but Thermate, a patented NANO-Thermite with a special sauce added to the mix, Sulfur, which lowers the melting point of steel... ground zero was absolutely littered with it.

You need to be able to better explain every shred of "planted" evidence, account for every act of deception, every person in the massive chain of deceit in a way that is at least plausible to a reasonable person.
In your own words please, not some kooky utube vid or some CnP from some nutty website. Of course, I don't mean all in one post, but at least something better than the nothing you've put forth so far.

NO, you don't... they are guilty by deduction. Please, put forth the evidence that supports a 757 hit the Pentagon? Or how about Shanksville? Those need mere observation to debunk the official story.

How can you I have put nothing forward so far? Have you read any of my posts? How about you put forth a credible theory for the official story? Really, just do one for me, try the Pentagon.

Who keeps feeding this fvcking troll?

[_paralyzed_]

Originally Posted by Freezebyte

Who keeps feeding this fvcking troll?

settle down freeze, I'm learning alot from this debate. There are some sharp minds on RCM. I always enjoy reading anything from intellectual superiors, regardless of the subject.

[_paralyzed_]

zpb: you missed the point of Finn mentioning binary arguments. It's not an a/b black/white subject. "C" and "Gray" are possible answers.

You do come across a 'lil cocky and arrogant for a debate. That does often get some of the most interesting discussions started but isn't the best way to get your point across.

Whatever, we all get feisty here and there.