WTC lease holder admits WTC7 was intentionally demolished !

Originally posted by Antimyth
Evidently you are not aware of how the world works.

[sarcasm]Oh, I see the way the World works is to fly planes into buildings so we can go to war with Iraq and these companies could get contracts to rebuild Iraq. Thanks, I wasn't sure how the Worlds works, thanks for enlightening me with no proof whatsoever[/sarcasm]

Originally posted by Antimyth
Motive? ummmm, geee, could it possibly be the untold BILLIONS awarded in military/industrial contracts, at taxpayer expense?? Or maybe it was the opportunity to 'expand the empire' and rape another nation of its natural resources?

You should try to make a habit of reading the entire thread before you post. As I said in one of my previous posts, if the gov were behind this, wouldn't just flying the planes into the buildings works just as well. Why would they have to bring the buildings down with a controlled demolition? The war on terrorism would have just as justified had just the planes been flown into the buildings.

Also, where is your proof of the I-beam underneath tower 7? Like I said before "look it up" doesn't work around here and you responded that you are not here to jump through hoops. Most people will want to back up their claims with at least a link. They don't concider that jumping through hoops, rather, how you post on ATS.

Why would they have to bring the buildings down with a controlled demolition?

Good retort by the way. But can you not think of at least a few reasons why the towers had to fall? I try not to draw any conclusions on this. I try to dissolve my emotions and look at the facts and I can at least think of a few reasons the towers needed to come down. THAT's what caused a vast majority of the deaths and it also concealed the evidence, gave reason to take down building 7 etc...

[edit on 17-7-2004 by roxdog]

Originally posted by roxdog
Good retort by the way. But can you not think of at least a few reasons why the towers had to fall? I try not to draw any conclusions on this. I try to dissolve my emotions and look at the facts and I can at least think of a few reasons the towers neede to come down. THAT's what caused a vast majority of the deaths and it also concealed the evidence, gave reason to take down building 7 etc...

OK, now that makes some sense, I'll give you that. I guess just flying the planes into the building weren't enough. There would have to be casualties to emotionally trigger the want to go to war. What do you mean gave reason the take down 7, there were no casualties from that were there? Also, conceal what evidence. The buildings falling would have destroyed any evidence if they were brought down intentionally.

Rox, save your fingers.
This guy is either young, stupid, or maybe he is an agent.
No matter what the case may be his reasoning skill is impaired.
I have yet to read any intelligent post by him and so i will now place him on ignore.

Originally posted by Antimyth
Rox, save your fingers.
This guy is either young, stupid, or maybe he is an agent.
No matter what the case may be his reasoning skill is impaired.
I have yet to read any intelligent post by him and so i will now place him on ignore.

Pretty typical. People who use the ignore button is like an angry child who can't get his way. I not young, I am 33, certainly not stupid, and definitely not an agent. That statement pretty much sums up your ignorance. Oh well, angry boy, I am on your ignore list now.

I think he was referring to the guy with the Alien-Bird theory. I could be wrong.

Originally posted by nyarlathotep

Originally posted by Antimyth
Evidently you are not aware of how the world works.

[sarcasm]Oh, I see the way the World works is to fly planes into buildings so we can go to war with Iraq and these companies could get contracts to rebuild Iraq. Thanks, I wasn't sure how the Worlds works, thanks for enlightening me with no proof whatsoever[/sarcasm]

Originally posted by Antimyth

Problem-Reaction-Solution
You fool people into doing what YOU want them to do, not what THEY want to do.
(its how Tom Sawyer got people to paint the fence)
Look it up, its an old trick.
Chew on that one for a while poser, quoting rage while toting the party line.

OK, now that makes some sense, I'll give you that. I guess just flying the planes into the building weren't enough. There would have to be casualties to emotionally trigger the want to go to war. What do you mean gave reason the take down 7, there were no casualties from that were there? Also, conceal what evidence. The buildings falling would have destroyed any evidence if they were brought down intentionally.

Chew on that one for a while poser, quoting rage while toting the party line.

Aw come on, let's be fair. The post above hardly tows the party line.

Agreed.
All appologies.

Originally posted by Antimyth
Chew on that one for a while poser, quoting rage while toting the party line.

Name calling will get you nothing but a warning and eventually banned. I am certainly not toting the party line. Even Roxdog who agrees with some of your ideas thinks you are out of line.

Suggestion: Relax, take a deep breath and count to 10. You will probably feel a lot better.

Still waiting for some kind of proof to back up what you are saying. But then again, I figured you don't have anything because you are resorting to the ignore button and name calling. Otherwise it is called opinion and you know how the saying goes, opinions are like a$$holes everyone has one.

Very interesting conversation

Now let's take that alien bird off the palette... what were those fanatic guys thinking at the moment of the crash?

Originally posted by Istvan
... what were those fanatic guys thinking at the moment of the crash?

Well, thats ASSUMING there were fanatics aboard the planes.
Once again i will direct you to page 10 of Operation Northwoods, where the GOV suggests a passenger switch and converting their plane to a drone....a drone........and flying into Cuban airspace and blowing it up via remote control.

Oh yeah, and what about the FACT that some of the men named by the FBI as perps are alive and well?
How could they fly planes into buildings and live to deny it?

[EDIT] forgot a link for ya....
www.welfarestate.com...

[edit on 17-7-2004 by Antimyth]

I need to know something, Has anyone on this board flew on a 737 that had 25 to 65 people on it? Is this a common practice? It seems airlines would lose money in the wasted fuel.

Antimyth, that's exactly was I was talking about. Thank you for providing a link, I am "chewing" on it now. I am currently researching the author's sources for that article. That is a hell of a lot more than most link's will have to back them up (sources listed), especially when it comes to government coverups.

Just from what I've read so far (I plan on looking into it all), the article claims that a good portion of the hijackers are still alive or lacked the required skills. Let me ask you this, what do you think happened? From your previous post, you indciate remote control, which is possible.

Give me your idea of what happened, by whom and for what purpose. I am curious to know.

BTW, no hard feelings. This is obviously a touchy subject, especially IF the government was behind it. I don't mean to be nasty, and I apologize. Let's just agree to disagree for now, OK?

Oh ,come on!... That is all nonsense! Rubbish! The government is just not capable for all this...

I believe, that there wew fake phone calls, to make the attack look more brutal, but it is yet i,possible to set up such attack, and get away with it.

There were early indications that WTC 7 was going to colapse.

Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

www.firehouse.com...

Interesting article HowardRoark....however it seems to contradict the interpretation of Silverstiens remark where it is claimed that by 'pull it' he meant 'pull the firefighters'.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that�s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn�t make any attempt to fight it.

"we didnt make any attempt to fight it"

So whoever it was that said 'pull IT' actually meant 'pull the FIREFIGHTERS' is sadly mistaken, because there were no firefighters to pull, and why would sivlerstein interchange "IT" with "THEM"?

I love it when people twist words around........
"Well yeah....thats what he SAID, but what he MEANT was........"

Originally posted by Istvan
Oh ,come on!... That is all nonsense! Rubbish! The government is just not capable for all this...

I believe, that there wew fake phone calls, to make the attack look more brutal, but it is yet i,possible to set up such attack, and get away with it.

No one is saying or CAN say "the government" but it is by no means nonsense or rubbish. That would be the 19 Arabs conspiracy theory. THAT is what is rubbish. That is the biggest conspiracy theory of them all.

[edit on 18-7-2004 by roxdog]

Antimyth, I don't see much contradiction there. Besides, you are forgetting the context of the day. confusion, fear, and the loss of over 300 fellow firefighters.

Yes, I think they meant "pull" in the sense that they were no lobger going to fight the fire.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Antimyth, I don't see much contradiction there.

Yes, I think they meant "pull" in the sense that they were no lobger going to fight the fire.

This is from the article you link to in your post....

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that�s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn�t make any attempt to fight it.

It was a heavy body of fire in there and then WE DIDN'T MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO FIGHT IT

..........didnt make any attempt to fight it, yet you maintain that they were no longer going to fight a fire that they "didnt make any attemp to fight" in the first place?

Im a bit confused, how could they decide to stop doing something that they had never started doing to begin with?