Originally posted by superleadoverdrive
Goodoldave, I am open-minded and do find your point of view enlightening, thanks for your thoughtful responses.
On regards to who and how, I agree that anyone would be skeptical as to how such a feat could be accomplished. Then I read two of Kevin Ryan's
papers regarding who the occupants in the towers were in the time leading up to and on the day of 9/11. Many of the tenants throughout the building,
including the ones directly where the planes hit were companies with ties to secret intelligence, CIA covert operations, military contractors and
demolition supplies and the Bush family. If you are open minded to the possibilities and implications of this and read these two papers,
Thank you for posting this. After reading this material, I have to tell you, all it does is prove what I've been saying from day one- these damned
fool conspiracy web sites are putting out utter rubbish to deliberately get people all paranoid over shadows. It's less of a case there's any
actual conspiracy, and more of a case that these web sites are intentionally making mountains out of mole hills for their own personal agenda.
Example #1- I was interested in your claim that "the tenants had connections to the CIA", so I read this article and located where in the
bibliography that backed up the claim that Marsh and McLennon (the tenants occupying the floors where AA11 hit) had CIA connections. It turned out to
be an article for a business journal detailing their fraudulent business practices. Their connection to the CIA is entirely one employee commenting
that "everything there was so secret, it's like working for the CIA". Look it up yourself if you don't believe me.
Example #2- The author also made great mention of the fact that Marsh & McLennon made "mysterious changes to the fire sprinklers" on the floor,
which is a misrepresentation. Building codes for the state of connecticut...and I can't believe the building codes for NY are any
different...dictate that only the local fire marshal can authorize changes. If the fire marshal demands that M&M make changes, they are legally
required to make them. If they need to make any changes themselves, they are legally required to have the fire marshal to inspect it. I'll wager
that the NYPA likewise needed to be involved to make sure the system actually worked becuase the NYPA is the one supplying the water. In short,
whatever construction M&M did, the NYFD and the NYPA has a full record of what it was.
In short, the author of the paper misrepresented "like working for the CIA" it into "having CIA connections", and construction that the NYFD and
NYPA watches like a hawk into innuendo over "mysterious changes to the sprinkler system" which implies that's the time when these supposed
controlled demolition were placed, all without coming out and actually saying it. There is no way he could have done this unintentionally. My point
is, if the author needs to introduce misrepresentation and manufacture innuendo to get his point across, then it's a de facto admission that he knows
the things he's saying are false.
By all means, check it out yourself to see whether what I've posted here is incorrect in any way.
