Everything you wanted to know about the 9/11 official conspiracy theory in 5 minutes.

The one thing I can debunk about debunking the term "pull it" as to it not being a term used for demolition. That is actually false. I used to be in the construction industry and have worked with various demolition crews in the past that have used the term "pull it" in reference to bringing it down.

That's what got me curious about WTC7...

 

I have not called you a truther. You have not displayed the universal characteristic of truthers, and until you do, you're just someone with questions. My point was that IF WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, then it wasn't just the terrorists involved and the ONLY entity with the ability to cover it up would be the government.

Have you read the NIST documents? They are very eye opening.

They ARE real documents. The documents were thought up by the Pentagon and then shot down by the President. I am not surprised someone would think up of something like the Northwoods documents. I would be surprised if someone followed through with something like that.

Fair enough. If you're willing to discuss the issue and look at the evidence, you're not a truther by anyone's definition. It is human nature to have questions and be curious. Truthers ignore the evidence. That is the difference. Ask your questions and you will get answers with evidence to back up the answers.

 

The building 7 stuff is probably the dumbest part of the truther rants.

What, the evil gubmint thought taking down 2 giant skyscrapers just wasn't enough propaganda value, so they had to add a smaller building? Even as a conspiracy theory, it makes no sense.

 

You're right. It IS a demolition term. It involves attaching cables to structures to pull them to one side. Pull it does not mean initiate a controlled demolition from any source I can find.

Here is an article written by a controlled demolitions expert, with help from other demolitions experts, that goes into details as to why it couldn't have been a controlled demolition. It is written in layman's terms and I've never seen a truther able to refute any of it's claims.

 

thanks for proving your in denial and afraid.if you were familiar with barry jennings testimony you would know how pathetic this post is. nice try. bld 7 was brought done because it housed the records of the CIA,amongts other things,yep be that coincidence theorist with his head buried in the sand with that ostrich.the government loves you for that.yep makes pleanty of sense that the ONLY towers owned by silverstein were the only ones that came down even though it never happened before in history.plenty of sense there.your hysterical.

 

Are you saying the CIA wanted to destroy its own records, or that someone else wanted to destroy the CIA records?

In order for the first to make sense, the CIA would have to lack paper shredders, incinerators and delete keys. Knocking a building down seems to be a rather inefficient way of deleting your records.

The second theory counts on the CIA not having any data backups, which is nearly as absurd.

I've seen the Barry Jennings interview. So? He experienced explosions. That's what happens after the skyscraper next door falls down and inflicts massive damage on a building with a fuel oil tank in it.

 

That has to be the stupidest thing I've heard...wouldn't the CIA records be kept at Langley?
And wouldn't they have multiple copies?

 

So are we to assume that you are paid as well?

You're here everyday constantly posting.

What's your motivation?

 

I think he's paid in cookies.

 

The OEM (office of emergency management) was in building seven.
Perhaps Flight 93 was going to hit the control center there but something went wrong with that plan.

The guy running the OEM testified that he evacuated building 7 after the first two planes hit because he "heard there was another plane in the air"; which to me means he thought the building could be a potential target.

Yeah, I also know from A to Z that there's a tortured mastermind in a secret prison somewhere on a communist island that says Flight 93s target was the White House, but some people will say anything to get out of Cuba.

 

So what's your point? That you think the terrorists wanted to disrupt NYC's Office of Emergency Management?

 

What is "average speed" when an object is in constant acceleration in free fall? As to your last statement, I think the problem you have is that you lack faith in the buildings architectural stability.

 

Does anyone think it suspicious that Donald Rumsfield declared 2.3 trillion dollars missing from the defense budget the day before 9/11? And that the pentagon attack killed a few dozen Army budget analysts?

 

Why would he say anything about it if he knew what was going to happen the next day?

 

and dont forget to mention that it only rammed into a wall that was being under construction and did not kill important people instead of targeting the area where the chain of command was.I just love the logic of the coincidence theorists.their logic would be great comedy relief if this wasnt such a tragic event.

 

Donald Rumsfeld did not declare any amount of money "missing from the defense budget". You have been misinformed.

 

What don't you understand? The building obviously didn't accelerate at free fall. It took at least 12 seconds instead of 9. What part of that do you need to me explain to you?

It has nothing to do with faith. Faith is not required. Stability (critical buckling load) can be determined mathematically for any building. Like I said. Do the math. Show me mathematically how the building could have handled the load from the falling upper block.

I think this statement is the result of 2 errors in logic. The first is a desire to find patterns in coinciding events that are completely unlinked. The other is the falsehood that killing Army budget analysts can hide money.

What makes no sense at all about this "suspicion" on the behalf of truthers is the convoluted nature of the charge. Why would the secretary of defense admit to poor accounting practices 1 day before a planned massive attack to hide poor accounting practices? What's the point of the attack? Why would they try to cover up something they just admitted to the day before? Why would they think that killing accountants would accomplish this?

 

What a vile statement.

 

Close enough. The theory here is that the original plan called for flight 93 to take out the emergency response in building 7, the command center in Rudy's high-rise bunker...to bring it down. I don't think the plan was two planes and three buildings.

 

UA93 was not even pointed toward NYC. You seem to be ignoring the testimony of the firefighters that were on the scene.

Not to mention: Demolishing a building is a very poor way to destroy records.

 

right the plan was more likely like you said,three planes in three buildings and when they diverted the shanksville crash,they had no choice but to detonate bld 7 and they lost the chance to use the airliner for the excuse like they did with the twin towers.

 

So you obviously think that Suede's theory that the plane was planted in Shanksville is crack pot. Right?

 

So given that three known targets were the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, you think the fourth target was Building 7???

What about the US Capitol and the White House?

 

The plane was apparently hijacked and it also ignored the firefighters.

Also, demolition is the easiest way to change a skyline.

 

UA93 was not flying toward NYC even after it was hijacked.

The firefighters and structural engineers on the scene predicted the collapse of WTC7 hours before it did so. No plane or explosives needed.