I believe that 9/11 was a teerorist act ...but!!!!

OK this is the deal. I am not a skeptic by most accounts but, I have yet to see or be explained how tower 7 went down!!!Ive read everything I could get my hands on , and no one can give me a deffinant answer!!!!now I know there will be conspiracy theorists with the how and why it was a conspiracy.. but is there anyone out there that can prove to me it had nothing to do with conspiracy????

Of course it was a terrorist act.
It dosent matter if it was Al-Queda or Al-C.I.A-DA.
The fact is,the act itself was terrorisum,regaurdless to whom was responsible.

reply to post by bugs_n_recovery


www.popularmechanics.com...

Originally posted by jmt18325
reply to post by bugs_n_recovery

 

www.popularmechanics.com...

You are either misinformed or engaging in deliberate deceit. The PM article has been debunked numerous times.

Here is my own debunking of that well-crafted piece of CIA garbage: forum.prisonplanet.com...

[edit on 13-3-2008 by LordCarpainter]

reply to post by LordCarpainter


Sorry, but you are the one who is misinformed. The truth is not always behind every corner. Sometimes its right in front of you.

WTC 7 is the biggest smoking gun in the whole ordeal. It had to have been control demoed in order to fall in that fashion. Sorry but anyone who has studied controlled demo for more than 10 seconds would know that.


The videos of WTC 7 are the most damning evidence there is to the official story.

reply to post by jmt18325


www.debunking911.com...

You debunked this too? You guys really have to stretch sometimes.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Try reading this - reports from FDNY personnel on scene reporting
severe impact damage to south face of WTC 7 and widespread fires.
Fireground commander (who is in charge on scene, not Silverstein as
the loons claim) decided to abandon it after receiving reports of damage
and lack of water to fight the fires.

Originally posted by bugs_n_recovery
I have yet to see or be explained how tower 7 went down!!!
...
is there anyone out there that can prove to me it had nothing to do with conspiracy????

Don't worry, you're not alone.

It's been over 6 years now and NIST--the governmental investigative body charged with examining the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7--have yet to issue a final report on Bldg 7 or propose a reasonable scenario for how Bldg 7 came down as it did.

That pretty much speaks for itself, conclude as you will.

Originally posted by jmt18325
www.debunking911.com...

You debunked this too? You guys really have to stretch sometimes.

What a laugh. Who do you think made that website?

Give up? It was one of you arm-chair "debunkers," tired of constant bickering through 1000s of posts on another forum.


I'll let you in on a secret, too: laws of physics don't need to be sponsored by a magazine, or a website run by a nobody. If they prove something on either one of your links, you could also prove it yourself here, just as easily. Many of us here have been through physics class on a college level, so I think we can handle it. Really I know we can because I've already seen the PM article tons of times and I'll give a damn about it the day I start giving a damn about pods and faked aircraft or whatever it focuses on (not the real problems ).

reply to post by bsbray11


The real problem is that some of you look for conspiracy everywhere. 9/11 was not a conspiracy and I'm more inclined to believe PM and every other debunker out there because they give me reasonable, informed opinions. Did you see the list of experts that PM used? I think I will take what they are saying as fact.

I have to wonder, (the precursor to new york) oklahoma city explosion should have brought down the alfred e numan building since it took out all the front floors and this was more devastating than what had occurred to wtc7. So wtc7 had a little damage and completely collapses. These buildings had structural integrity not to do such a thing.

It just does not ad up to me. So a conspiracy it is.

Originally posted by jmt18325
9/11 was not a conspiracy and I'm more inclined to believe PM and every other debunker out there because they give me reasonable, informed opinions.

Then that's the difference between you and me: I'm not afraid to make my own mind up based on what I know of science, while you're suckling at anyone else's opinion that you feel comfortable with, that must fit this pre-conception of "reasonable" to you, ie, anything that doesn't implicate 9/11 was an inside job.

Are you still waiting for a group of scientists and engineers to take the initiative to think for yourself? Because we already have those groups. They want heavy re-investigation. When are you going to pay close attention to what exactly you're seeing in those collapse videos and start to figure it all out for yourself? Because that's when I want to talk to you about PM and who gives two rat asses what anyone over there thinks.

Did you see the list of experts that PM used? I think I will take what they are saying as fact.

Yeah, so did you know they only actually cited something like 2 people relevant to the WTC collapses in their article and one of them was from NIST (Shyam Sunder)?

Do you know what marketing is, man? If you aren't going to look into things too deeply then people are ALWAYS going to sell you GARBAGE. They put that list there to sell you their authority. It's a magazine.

If it was a conspiracy, why create so much fuss? I mean, why demolishing a tower without supposedly hitting it with plane/missile?
The way i see it - no plane-no falling building. Why create "smoking gun" in the first place?
However i have to notice that first time i heard about this tower is on this forum, so mass media is not "generous" about this fact, at least here.

reply to post by jmt18325


Can't provide an intelligent response to my thorough debunking of their article, so all you do is spurt out meaningless characters? Why do you push an article which has been factually destroyed and outed as a piece of CIA/DHS garbage?

www.debunking911.com...

You debunked this too? You guys really have to stretch sometimes.

No, we do not. All we must do is have brains. Anyone who has investigated this issue one bit can see that debunking911 does not address the strongest claims, and only addresses weaker ones. When it does address a stronger claim, it gets its facts wrong. Just like 911myths.

The real problem is that some of you look for conspiracy everywhere. 9/11 was not a conspiracy and I'm more inclined to believe PM and every other debunker out there because they give me reasonable, informed opinions. Did you see the list of experts that PM used? I think I will take what they are saying as fact.

Then you are a closed-minded idiot. You ignore the fact that PM has been completely torn apart numerous times.

If it was a conspiracy, why create so much fuss? I mean, why demolishing a tower without supposedly hitting it with plane/missile?
The way i see it - no plane-no falling building. Why create "smoking gun" in the first place?
However i have to notice that first time i heard about this tower is on this forum, so mass media is not "generous" about this fact, at least here.

Because Building 7 was the command center for the NYC attack. Government agencies had offices in it and it had a secret CIA station in it. It also had one floor protected with bullet proof windows and an air/water support system. Why do this to only one floor? This particular floor gave the perps a perfect view of NYC. That's why they blew it up after both Towers collapsed. It was the command center for the WTC portion of the 9/11 attack.

Unless the BBC is full of psychics...



If I had tried to fly anywhere NEAR the Pentagon pre-9/11 I would have been killed. Flight 77 spent 2 minutes and 30 seconds making a giant 330 degree turn to hit the Pentagon all while in restricted air-space.

Of course, all we have been told is excuses to account for what didn't happen on 9/11.

You can see bldg. 7 still standing when she moves to the side.

[edit on 3/15/08 by Angry Danish]

[edit on 3/15/08 by Angry Danish]

reply to post by Angry Danish


Oh because some idiot reporter is told that WTC 7 has collapsed and
she repeats this without 1st checking that it is "PROOF" of a conspiracy?

I suppose you would believe it if told you that there is this bridge for
sale in Brooklyn.....

Originally posted by Black_Fox
Of course it was a terrorist act.
It dosent matter if it was Al-Queda or Al-C.I.A-DA.
The fact is,the act itself was terrorisum,regaurdless to whom was responsible.

True, but the US public believe terrorists have beards and go by muslim names, a simplification made so things can be black and white. Are you routing for the home team or the away team?

I think human beings arent born stupid, but living in these societies helps alot...

reply to post by WorldShadow


Thats a good point there, from what i know about both they even seem to have been built the same way. Interesting, point tho WS

Originally posted by thedman
I suppose you would believe it if told you that there is this bridge for
sale in Brooklyn.....

It's easy to pick on single events and ridicule and make excuses for them. No single event proves anything. You need to learn to see the forest...