actually his false ramblings can all be proven as just that.ramblings with no basis to them as always. here is why. 1.ask Bushs cousin who were his CIA boys that put them in.he was the head of security.duh. 2.months in advance obviously. 3.same answer as number one. 4.the CIA and mossad.thats been exposed but the 9/11 apologists refuse to watch the videos that expose it since they only see what they want to see. 5.nobody ever said they did. 6.answer same as number 5. 7.remote controlled obviously.they DO have that kind of sophisticated equipment these days.duh. 8.I notice he forgets to mention al Qaeda was funded by the CIA. and that Bin Laden denied he did it afterwards. 9.uh an unproven speculation.better question is WHY were the dancing israel's allowed to leave the country after they were spotted by police officers dancing and celebrating afterwards. seriously that was all way too easy and simple to debunk. what none of the 9/11 apologists were ever to debunk were any of these facts in this first post on this thread here.they all failed miserably. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/343832-10-things-debunkers-can-never-ever-explain.html
The president's brother was NOT 'in charge of security' Stratesec wasn't even at the WTC on 9/11 And the head of security DIED in the collapse
Who MURDERED John O'Neill? also in the sort of circles that the Bush Crime Family has going, its really not a matter of what your official title is, but who you know and what you can get accomplished, with or without official connection to the actual office in question.
I have a basic question that hasn't been answered yet. I know that there had been microspheres found in the WTC dust of which one side says those are remains of Nano Thermite, the others say those are particles of anti corrosive paint from the metal structure of the building released during the fire. The critical point are those who jumped before the alleged explosions occurred. I know (from my profession) that sombody jumping from such an altitude might be severely disintegrated on impact, but I also know that all victims were autopsied (e.g. for identification) and that for histological examinations only microscopically small samples are required. So if any microscopically small amount of lung tissue was retrieved from the jumpers that should contain those red "flakes" if debris from the fire and it shouldn't if remains of explosives (or mobilized by an explosion). That is a routine question which is investigated in every fire (if death occured by smoke or gas inhalation, thermic trauma or otherwise) during criminal investigations. It would solve the "explosions or not" question once and forever. Here however it doesn't occur to me as if a meticulous criminal investiagtion was carried out at all. Instead the National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST conducted some computer modeling if fire standards of buildings were adequately observed or have to be changed. That is not a CRIMINAL investigation. That is some kind of a technical expertise, no more, no less. On the other side, those who should be most interested in clarifying every most minor detail, the government or its executive branch, law enforcement, behave like defendants themselves. Why is that so?
NIST is not a criminal investigative organization. The FBI did the forensics investigation you're looking for.
The Bush /Stratesec connection made here very nicely: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html Just another one of those 'coincidences' we're all supposed to just blow off, I guess.
No, it's NOT 'made up nicely'...It's just plain made up! http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread960968/pg1
and exactly where is this FBI report on the investigation oh yea, you gotta submit an FOI act request, and hope that they actually release some real information. My tax dollars at work ........ whatever ........
1. No member of the Bush family was in charge of WTC security 2. No video has ever produced evidence that the CIA or mossad were involved. 3. Bin laden admitted it he did not deny it. EVery claim you have made has been crushed and you have been utterly defeated and humiliated in every forum and every thread. - - - Updated - - - No it is not made nicely as there never was a connection and that is fact
Must be similar to the 'official' fable then. The bs we're expected to believe was certainly 'made up', in my opinion.
That is not what I say but it is fact which was proven LONG ago. It is amazing how you twoofers think a little time goes by and you can exhume an old lie from the crypt and no one will remember how it was a proven lie. The accusations that Bush's brother was involved in security at WTC was screamed to be evidence by every twoofer years ago. Only to discover that it was all false he was not connected to security at WTC in any way. So now years later try again in the hopes that everyone forgot the facts. Pretty much every claim on all of these threads has the same flaw
This gets down to speculation, the official faction just loves speculation. fact is, it doesn't matter WHO was in charge of security, the building was rigged for demolition. it is futile to launch into speculation about by WHO & exactly how, these questions await a real investigation, if one ever happens.
If it does not matter then why is the lie about Bush so regularly repeated by the twoofers? You and all other twoofers have utterly failed to prove a case for demolition and the evidence proves it was not rigged as you claim.
in YOUR interpretation of the "evidence" maybe, however there are significant features of the "collapse" events that are parallels to controlled demolition. How is it known for certain that sufficient mass of rubble maintained on top of the collapsing bit, so as to cause the destruction of the as yet intact tower? the sides of the tower were breaking, & therefore provided opportunity to spill rubble over the side, what then kept sufficient mass on top, so as to guarantee destruction?
Given the fact that was was observed was a very energetic mass, exactly how is it that GRAVITY caused the mass of rubble to remain on top so as to act as a "pile driver"?
Features and parallels are not evidence. You have no evidence of any kind despite over a decade of repeating the same tripe. ALL of the evidence proves you wrong
One more question: The WTC1 and WTC2 allegedly were structurally interrupted in a high level, then the mass above that floor falling down became too high for the next one below to carry it, making it collapse, falling on the one below...... Building 7 was cut nearly on ground level. This cut would have made all of the rest above fall down one or two levels. At the level, where it was "cut" (by whatever it was) it was built to be strong enough to carry the rest (which it did all the time). Why did it collapse like the others (or even more elegantly)?
Engineering, calculations, and models. Things you don't comprehend. That's what you keep asking for a "layman's" explanation. When provided with these explanations, you say you don't trust them.
