Poll

How do people think these buildings came down?

Two jets and jet fuel and impact velocity.
As above but also the buildings were quite old and not that well made.
The jets and a descision by someone 'to pull' the them.
They would never have collapsed like that without explosives weakening them.
Morrisey did it.

Author Topic: 9/11 Controlled demolition.  (Read 70580 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #350 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 02:34:33 PM »
They've really got to stop financing Al Quaeda as well. bluewink.gif

Offline ChezGiven

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #351 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 02:41:34 PM »
They've really got to stop financing Al Quaeda as well. bluewink.gif

Are you logged on through 2 accounts and chatting to yourself? ..... again!  :lol:

Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #352 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 02:46:07 PM »
Silence Adam!! blueeek.gif



 bluecool.gif

Offline Kitman

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #353 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 02:50:06 PM »
They've really got to stop financing Al Quaeda as well. bluewink.gif

Are you logged on through 2 accounts and chatting to yourself? ..... again!  :lol:

 :lol: We certainly can't rule it out
If you wonder why a professional football club should need a refresher course in such obvious issues as punctuality, discipline, team-bonding, fitness, injured players staying late for extra treatment, communication with those who have been out of the side (such as Mark Viduka last week), then you are not alone. One word: shambles.

Offline BlufPurdi

  • Administrator
  • Speaking truth to stupid since 2005.
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #354 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 03:03:10 PM »
BTW WTC 7 is the most compelling reason to think that all the buildings were pre-wired with explosives.

Indeed.  Yet it gets ignored and passed off as irrelevant.
Making mistakes is how you learn.
Every generation must fight the same battles again and again and again. There is no final victory, and there is no final defeat, and so a little bit of history may help.
“What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
That is why no one with power likes democracy and that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it – including you and me, here and now.

Invicta_Toon

  • Guest
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #355 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 03:10:43 PM »
BTW WTC 7 is the most compelling reason to think that all the buildings were pre-wired with explosives.

Indeed.  Yet it gets ignored and passed off as irrelevant.

"we decided to pull it"

yep, damning evidence

Offline ChezGiven

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #356 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 03:12:26 PM »
BTW WTC 7 is the most compelling reason to think that all the buildings were pre-wired with explosives.

Indeed.  Yet it gets ignored and passed off as irrelevant.

"we decided to pull it"

yep, damning evidence

2sheds, a good example of Vi's poor use of sarcasm.  blueyes.gif

Offline 2sheds

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #357 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 05:46:15 PM »
BTW WTC 7 is the most compelling reason to think that all the buildings were pre-wired with explosives.

Indeed.  Yet it gets ignored and passed off as irrelevant.

"we decided to pull it"

yep, damning evidence

2sheds, a good example of Vi's poor use of sarcasm.  blueyes.gif

I see what you mean Chez

Why does vic put words into my mouth then argue against my alleged position?

Vic who mentioned 'pull it'?

I was referring to the way it fell after no planes had hit it you silly boy :doh:
"Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?"

Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #358 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 05:49:33 PM »
Might as well get ALL the insurance money. :lol:

Those building were losing money year in year out and it seemed impossible to get a buyer or get them re-insured cause of the poor state of the fire proofing on the metal beams. Enter Silverstein....Game over. bluewink.gif

Offline Kitman

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #359 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 05:51:00 PM »
Might as well get ALL the insurance money. :lol:

Those building were losing money year in year out and it seemed impossible to get a buyer or get them re-insured cause of the poor state of the fire proofing on the metal beams. Enter Silverstein....Game over. bluewink.gif

It's a conspiracy I tells ya!  :august31:
If you wonder why a professional football club should need a refresher course in such obvious issues as punctuality, discipline, team-bonding, fitness, injured players staying late for extra treatment, communication with those who have been out of the side (such as Mark Viduka last week), then you are not alone. One word: shambles.

Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #360 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 05:52:18 PM »
.......it's just business Kitty.

Offline Kitman

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #361 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 05:54:02 PM »
.......it's just business Kitty.

I just like saying it  bluebiggrin.gif  Otherwise I'd have to read the thread and post something serious  :huff:
If you wonder why a professional football club should need a refresher course in such obvious issues as punctuality, discipline, team-bonding, fitness, injured players staying late for extra treatment, communication with those who have been out of the side (such as Mark Viduka last week), then you are not alone. One word: shambles.

Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #362 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 06:11:21 PM »
The first 5 or so pages are very good Kitty. After that it goes a bit into repetition.

Offline ChezGiven

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #363 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 07:38:27 PM »
The first 5 or so pages are very good Kitty. After that it goes a bit into repetition.

Yeah, i nailed it in post 88 tbh.

Whether the Port Authorities or then Silverstein knew the attack was coming that day or not is irrevelevant.

The towers were already a terrorist target. Big companies do 'risk assessments' on their assets all the time (my company has a large building that could be targetted and i know there is a plan in place if anything happens).

The risk assessment would have included people trying to bring the towers down (pretty much top of the list since the early 90s).

Ok, this is where it gets tricky  :roll: what do you think they are planning for in the event of another attack?

a) How to save the building? Perhaps with joists erected in the Hudson river, 700 helicopters and a f*** load of string?

or

b) How to make sure the clean up is as quick and as efficient as possible, how to minimise the disruption to life in lower manhattan?

Then if you are sneaky billionaire with an insurance policy that pays out if they collapse, you might just go down the route that b) suggests to you but not even tell anyone about it.

There, you dont need conspiracies with fundamentalist arabs and neocons in them. You just need to understand how to handle biilions of dollars worth of investment. 

Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #364 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 07:51:01 PM »
"Then if you are sneaky billionaire with an insurance policy that pays out if they collapse, you might just go down the route that b) suggests to you but not even tell anyone about it.

There, you dont need conspiracies with fundamentalist arabs and neocons in them. You just need to understand how to handle biilions of dollars worth of investment." Chez

Sounds reasonable, but if you're buying loss making buildings you best know that soon you'll get a chance to demolish them....That is where it gets tricky. blueyes.gif

Offline ChezGiven

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #365 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 07:55:21 PM »
Silverstein may have known nothing other than 'if they do get hit, "PULL EM" and we can re-develop with a clear $1billion on top'.


Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #366 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 08:21:25 PM »
I will be opening a second front on this very soon. blueeek.gif

Offline Dokko

  • TT
  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #367 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 08:25:56 PM »
BTW WTC 7 is the most compelling reason to think that all the buildings were pre-wired with explosives.

Indeed.  Yet it gets ignored and passed off as irrelevant.

My feelings also, something fishy about the whole thing, we'll never know the truth though.

Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #368 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 08:32:44 PM »
Happy as Larry:

Then the catastrophe came upon New York. On September 11, only three months after signing the lease between Silverstein and the Port Authorities, two large passenger jets crashed into the towers. Larry was lucky, that he was not responsible for liabilities towards the Port Authorities, since the disaster was an act of God. Quite the contrary happened. Larry Silverstein, despite not being the owner of the buildings, was the sole beneficiary of the insurance indemnity payments of more than 7 billion Dollars. Good for Larry that he had not forgotten to increase the insurance policies, just in time, when he signed the lease three months before the catastrophe happened: "Larry Silverstein, since July landlord of the towers, demands from the insurers 7,2 billion Dollars compensation, his speaker, Steve Solomon, said. ... The Port Authorities of New York and New Jersey, owners of the WTC, agree with Silverstein's demand." --Die Welt, Berlin, Oct 10, 2001.

Invicta_Toon

  • Guest
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #369 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 09:17:58 PM »
BTW WTC 7 is the most compelling reason to think that all the buildings were pre-wired with explosives.

Indeed.  Yet it gets ignored and passed off as irrelevant.

"we decided to pull it"

yep, damning evidence

2sheds, a good example of Vi's poor use of sarcasm.  blueyes.gif

I see what you mean Chez

Why does vic put words into my mouth then argue against my alleged position?

Vic who mentioned 'pull it'?

I was referring to the way it fell after no planes had hit it you silly boy :doh:

if you knew anything about the subject you would have understood, but never mind, don't let ignorance get in the way of your opinions

Offline ChezGiven

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #370 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 09:21:53 PM »
Silverstein is on record as saying 'We decided to pull it' (WTC7).

Keep your head Vic.

Invicta_Toon

  • Guest
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #371 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 09:22:23 PM »
The first 5 or so pages are very good Kitty. After that it goes a bit into repetition.

Yeah, i nailed it in post 88 tbh.

Whether the Port Authorities or then Silverstein knew the attack was coming that day or not is irrevelevant.

The towers were already a terrorist target. Big companies do 'risk assessments' on their assets all the time (my company has a large building that could be targetted and i know there is a plan in place if anything happens).

The risk assessment would have included people trying to bring the towers down (pretty much top of the list since the early 90s).

Ok, this is where it gets tricky  :roll: what do you think they are planning for in the event of another attack?

a) How to save the building? Perhaps with joists erected in the Hudson river, 700 helicopters and a f*** load of string?

or

b) How to make sure the clean up is as quick and as efficient as possible, how to minimise the disruption to life in lower manhattan?

Then if you are sneaky billionaire with an insurance policy that pays out if they collapse, you might just go down the route that b) suggests to you but not even tell anyone about it.

There, you dont need conspiracies with fundamentalist arabs and neocons in them. You just need to understand how to handle biilions of dollars worth of investment. 

right, so they had a formal written plan?

suspending all commen sense for a minute, don't you think people would be interested in a little thing like murder charges in such a scenario?

Offline Kitman

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #372 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 10:41:33 PM »
I will be opening a second front on this very soon. blueeek.gif

Madness!  No-one ever won fighting on 2 fronts  bluebiggrin.gif
If you wonder why a professional football club should need a refresher course in such obvious issues as punctuality, discipline, team-bonding, fitness, injured players staying late for extra treatment, communication with those who have been out of the side (such as Mark Viduka last week), then you are not alone. One word: shambles.

Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #373 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 11:33:43 PM »
I open fronts where people just see shops. bluewink.gif

Offline Kitman

  • General Member
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #374 on: Tuesday 28 November 2006, 11:35:37 PM »
I open fronts where people just see shops. bluewink.gif

You mean you open your Y-Fronts whenever you're at the shops  bluebiggrin.gif
If you wonder why a professional football club should need a refresher course in such obvious issues as punctuality, discipline, team-bonding, fitness, injured players staying late for extra treatment, communication with those who have been out of the side (such as Mark Viduka last week), then you are not alone. One word: shambles.