...?? They bloody well can, if it's only the upper levels on fire! Haven't you seen the videos? There's like twenty stories between the fires that I could see and the ground. So the islamicists were more after the psychology of the West than the Towers themselves? Interesting. That's probably why Al Qaeda switched to the planes. I mean, how can you stop a plane? Can't exactly pull him over. Neildo: again, why the Jewish reference, tho? Geoff
Well, that's over the top, as usual for you. "Attacks" is plural but there was only one. It was a truck bomb in a basement parking lot. They still could have pulled that off with four or five correctly placed truck bombs, they just didn't know the critical locations and that one was actually a pretty crude attempt. But still that would have gotten only one tower unless they duplicated it in the other basement - and that's a lot of trucks and activity. The main thrust here is that the planes gave a MUCH stronger visual impact and a deep psychological one, too. People began instantly thinking of planes striking schools, nuclear power plants, hospitals - all sorts of things.
If that were the case the whole demolition would have been botched, the bombs have to be placed evenly throughout the building in order to make the building fall properly, right? BTW Geoff I left you a private message which you seem to be ignoring.
Not evenly, just strategically; kill the core columns and gravity will do the rest. Remember, Building 7 wasn't necessarily a "controlled" demolition, it was simply a demolition.
Well you're going to have to place them all the way to the top.. or else the section not demolished will topple over, right?
Yes and no - I read your private message, and I responded to you, and I've seen part of the movie. What more do you expect me to do at this point? Is there a test? Give it some time, please. As for the demolition, again: a rush job CAN be done, at need. The military can certainly do rapid demolitions if they have to. The expertise exists. Geoff
Hmm. All right, I didn't respond. I was pretty sure I did. Anyway, the content was "I'm very skeptical but I'll look at the film and will get back to you." So: I'm very skeptical but I'll look at the film and will get back to you. Thanks Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Geoff
So we're in agreement that they demolished (at least) WTC 7 then. And yet the 9/11 Commission has ommitted this from their report, not suspicious?
HA, it could be proven in court to the degree of preponderance of evidence, which is satisfactory for civil- but not criminal litigation. This is a lamentable reality at issue against all the "9/11" lawsuits; Stanley Hilton, Phil Berg, etc... I don't recall any of them naming or trying to depose Larry Silverstein, which is the only way we're going to get to the bottom of Building 7's collapse (which, yes, again- can be proven to exhibit every single observed characteristic of a controlled demolition, forensically). Cheers
1. The owner of the WTC who called for WTC 7 to be pulled, is a powerful, Jewish, businessman. For him to pull WTC 7, who knows what other involvement he and his group may have in the whole 9/11 scenario. 2. It's fun to say gifelte instead of fishy, especially when Israel or Jews are involved. 3. I wanted to see if anyone would catch on to my play on words the few times I've used it. - N
I don't understand what you mean by that. Subsidiary damage as in... "Hey look, the towers are coming down... so we might as well take down it's neighbour, quick let's rig it"? BTW I just thought of this. But considering the amount of eyewitnesses at the scene, why didn't anyone see a bunch of people packing bombs into the building? And if there was secrecy surrounding it, why would he later confess to its demolition? These are rhetorical questions of course. Because his admission was more of a foible, and nobody saw this because they didn't rig it that day. I'm sorry but I have to be forward with that fact. I don't want to sound like a jerk, but how do you know that even under extreme circumstances it can be quickly set up? I didn't want to reply to that because I didn't know the exact how-to, but I was pretty sure theres alot more science to it than a building falling would imply. And 7 hours to rig a building for perfect demolition? Geoff, please. "How Stuff Works - Implosions"
Yeah, you're rightfully skeptical. It evidently wasn't intended to be hit with a plane, no, and we have no way of knowing exactly what the other targets were (although the plans for the "planes operation" captured in Manila in 1996 on Ramzi Yousef's laptop PC are "illuminating"), or the significance of why anyone but indirect beneficiaries of 7's collapse would want it so- but any such persons or organizations would probably lack the means, thus the plannning-- even if the pandemonium of the tower collapses would've provided them with a "golden" opportunity. A short look at 7's tenant list reveals some curious details; CIA, S&EC, US SS, etc.- but nothing fitting a criminological profile of a beneficiary; businesses tend to need to stay in business, and organizations organized. I've heard the suggestion that the SEC had valuable evidence stored there for important litigation indicting Wall Street business persons, but doubt that destroying a building to avoid jail is more locial than just trying to destroy the evidence itself, knowing that such evidence could've easily been copied or stored elsewhere. ... I'm putting on my Conspiracy Hat here, for the sake of clarity... I'm hoping HA will discuss the last one... If 7 was intentionally demolished, it was for one (or more) of the following reasons: (1) To collect insurance. (Too obvious) (2) To avoid paying damages if it fell "wrong" onto adjacent buildings. (3) It was (or later became) part of the PsyOp. (4) It was itself a crime scene. (Many believe this) (5) It was a deliberate diversion. (My favorite, and least talked about) Cheers
Well let's see what did, didn't, and could have happened; 1) He did collect insurance, 2.2 Billion USD I believe. What I'm very unclear about is why in the world these 13 insurance companies would not conduct their own investigation into this and reveal what they've learned. Insurance companies are not usually happy with pay outs, and would do anything in their power to stop it, and intriguingly they just went to court and not learn anything new with an investigation. 2) If it fell "wrong"... well, are you talking about the towers or WTC 7? Because the idea of WTC 7 even collapsing is ridiculous. No plane hit it, so umm? Besides, not even the firefighters knew WTC was going to fall, and they are trained to know about building fires. 3) I highly doubt it was a PsyOp because it wasn't on the news at all. WTC 1 and 2 were the highlights, and so was Osama Bin Laden. 4) Crime scene? Yeah I can see how it can be one. The best explanation of this one is that the Mayor's floor had been turned into mini-control tower with a transponder for the planes to follow, without having to fly to one of the airports and then work out which way was manhattan. Which makes sense, because how else are you to know which way to go when all you see is sky. 5) I just read about this one from your link. I guess it makes sense, theres a difference between "Demolition?! Who did he call to demolish it and why?!" and "Demolition?! Oh okay I guess the fire dept. knew what it was doing". And by admitting that it's a demo due to a fire, the fire is still "responsible" in a way because it was going to collapse anyways, according to their connotation of the "uncontrollable fire".
Just talking about 7 for now... and I'm not sure what part of Silverstein and Associates' final settlement was for 7 specifically. With (2) I was suggesting that they "pulled it" to avoid 7 hitting surrounding buildings, and the subsequent lawsuits and liability which *a bad collapse* might have generated. Very good rebuttal of point (3), that is utterly fatal to it's potential as a PsyOp. Right on with the assessment of (4) also, a view expressed by Alex Jones and others. Yeah, (5) is more of a semantic point, but since we're talking about it, consider that in order to "better explain away" the very act of "burning steel high-rises falling down" the coverup crowd (not necessarily the perps, mind you, but the "cleaners" and "revisionists" and "ass-coverers")- NEEDED either a precedent (which none existed) or an antecedent to support the "meme" of "steel building => fire => collapse"-- because no other instances have ever occurred. Had Building 7 not simply "fallen down due to fire" (and some minor physical damage) then the twin towers' collapses "due to fire" would've seemed even more implausible than they already do. It's usefulness as a diversion also serves the exact same purpose as decoys do a duck hunter; attract those who one needs to "shoot at" (or marginalize, or buy off, or blackmail, etc, etc), even if this was not the intention of anyone who may have helped demolish 7 it does nevertheless serve the interests of both the perps and the politicians. I suppose my attraction to this explanation is obscure, but that last point will "grow on you"... Cheers
As in: there's chunks of building hitting this one and it's on fire and we need all our firemen to dig people out of the wreckage. That or: insurance scam. Yes. With enough explosive you simply knock out the supports and down she comes. Geoff
