" I helped one of my mates a few years ago gut a home he'd bought and was renovating (he made £75k on it eventually, jammy twat!). We built a bonfire in the back garden for all the doors, floorboards, etc, and it got so hot that in the end you could put anything on it and it'd melt - even a bath, as I remember. All we had to do, at first, was to keep poking it up and stoking it up. It smouldered for three days." Post 212
This is interesting BBC world news reported the news of WTC7 collapsing 20 minutes before it collapsed. Also Elmundo reported a story about Bin laden buying 3 nukes from the Ukraine on 2001 sept 16, this is claimed to be related to the story given to officials who signed the report for the commission. 3 Nukes demo'd the 3 towers Do you not find it interesting that the original commission did not explain how or why wtc7 collapsed, they omitted that completely and that's not theory, they did omit it and it is one of the reasons why millions of Americans did not and some still do not know that WTC 7 went down too. If you watch it, this BBC news report on wtc 7 has gone down due to damage. look at it, behind the reporter WTC7 is still up!! [video=youtube;ky90eEIzStw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky90eEIzStw&feature=player_detailpage[/video] That was the story given as to why it went down after the commission report, someone ****ed up and gave out the exact story used too early, it proves it was a prepared excuse prior to collapse
Btw, what IS the theory as too why 'THEY' (be it Bin Laden, Bush, Blair, The Illuminati or the Masons) so desperately needed WT7 to collapse as well? Do you think the American response would have been more measured, the American public totally pacified, and Al Qeada would have felt it a failure had only the Twin Towers and the Pentagon been hit by hijacked planes and WT7 survived? Indeed, as it appears so vital to this conspiracy to bring down WT7, why did they not fly one of those hypnotising missiles into it, the ones that people and video-tapes later swear blind were aeroplanes? And another thing, I saw a program about the survivors on the fifth anniversary. One of them, a bloke in his 50's whose face had been burned, told of how he saw the plane looming in his office window as it slammed into the building a few floors below him. Also on the program was the office worker who saved his life by carrying him down four floors, and the fireman who managed to force a fire escape door open that had been buckled shut with the impact. Were they all stooges? hypnotised? Media-controlled?
I have already read that, not every word but have gone through it, it doesnt explain why the whole thing just turned to dust, not even an intact mouse pad was recovered, the single point of failure is an explain away imo. it was the only secnario they could possibly put forward that attempted to explain the way it went down, and it fails if you ask me, it might explain why it might have collapsed but now how it actually did I have also not referred to the pull comments although I have used the word but not in the context of the claim it was said. No debris of any note. there was nothing left of that building Donga, nothing, it was just gone. there are many accounts of nothing being left of it, really? large buildings collapse around the world and have done so and never in human history has a building turned to dust, or just fell down flat **** gone, it is always an uneven event and large sections remain even if atop rubble not dust and fragments. That's my problem with a lot of debunk stuff I have read over, they only explain some aspects of what might happened while ignoring glaring irregularities. did you watch that BBC report/
Now dont start this Illuminati crap, I never went with that **** although some references may have been in videos, explain the BBC report for me please if you wish, hmm, this is something solid and not an opinion of you or I, that's the difference between you and me, you attack my opinions when I offer questions, you dont offer explanations, I do try offer explanations. You mock and bluster without providing one logical explanation to the questions I am asking. As for what you say above, people lie, especially if they have good reason to, if coerced to for good or bad reasons. I cannot prove any of that one way or the other. All I can look at is the irregularities of what we are told and the physical indications of what happened and why things the way they were.
You keep throwing stuff that cannot be examined. talking about a survivors reunion, how the **** can I comment on that, and how do you know what the truth is about that and what happened? What if he was told to say it? given good reason for the good of america to lie? You cant explain why there is molten metal just below the surface 6 weeks after the event, you tried to tell me it was 3 days. You cant come up with another reason why that kind of temp existed 3 months after the event, no one can because there is only one possible reason You cant explain why there is no hole from the exiting nose of the plane and those are on all the pictures of the tower, there was no exit hole from a nose cone two stories in size, it somehow fit through a window, see the difference in what you and I offer, you the word and words of people, I actual provided photographed physical evidence you ignore totally You cant explain why 3 sky scrapers turned to dust, it is there for all to see, it is not a theory, 3 scrapers turned to dust, steel people concrete and all the other contents. Coincidentally it was all shipped away. The tested dust from new york was comprised mainly of metal I cant explain it all either but I won't ignore it the only complete explanation has come from Khalesov, 75k, I earn more than that in 2 years and you tell me he worked on his books for all of that time to earn 75k, oh and he gave his book away, really dude. You suck at this.
also you never mentioned the BBC report? WTC 7 collapsed from damage and yet there is it behind the reporter? [video=youtube;ky90eEIzStw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky90eEIzStw&feature=player_embedded[/video]
another good question is why the building supposedly struck 2nd supposedly collapsed first. Weight is not an issue as the heat was the reason given not where it was struck, never mind that it hit the side of the building on the second tower hit so should it not have leaned to the side a bit and fell over if only 1 side melted from the plane hitting the side of the building
Conveniently they had found large "potholes" under the WTC during construction of the new buildings From 20,000 years ago Really? Shots of the pothole interior and pictures in the video, other research makes me tend to doubt this as the rock looks like reformed molten rock, make up your own minds. This is from the WTC mysterious pothole 70 feet under ground. please log in to view this image please log in to view this image A video of more shots [video=youtube;jM3bHgTBxGo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jM3bHgTBxGo[/video] Also make no mistake about modern nuclear devices, some folk keeps referring to the devices used in Nevada 40 years ago. They are a very different beast today and are an available tactical weapon for the modern battlefield to minimize exposure and radiation, the tech has come a long long way and in fact we have no idea what the capabilities are. the uranium would have fell back into the hole after the detonation and kept melting its way through the rock literally burying its self, maybe part of the long term containment procedure panned in the first place
Article on newscientist.com written by a firefighter. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1634#.Umw6PBChQ7I
And all can say, finally, because I truly have no wish to fall out with you and I'm not dragging this out any more, is that if any event is scrutinised to the enth degree you'll find 'inconsistencies'. I can't even begin to think where to start, for instance, with the one about the south tower collapsing first - after the hijackers had gone to so much trouble to hit the buildings at precisely the same place, at an identical speed with precisely the same loadings of fuel and weight... NOT. As I've said Sis, I do believe the NSA and CIA are not telling us everything they knew before, during and after the attacks. But aeroplanes that are guided missiles that eye-witnesses hallucinate are planes? Thousands of eyewitnesses and survivors that are 'co-erced' into making false accounts for television documentaries? telephone calls from passengers and stewardesses on the planes from people that are never seen again are... what, made up? Nuclear detonations five times bigger than Hiroshima that don't leave any fall-out? A BBC reporter says WTC7 has collapsed AFTER a firefighter has already been on US television to say its collapse was imminent - and that's proof that he BBC were in on it too? A whole industry is built upon the chaos and inconsistencies of that tumultuous day, but can you not see that there is proportionally ten times more inconsistencies in the conspiracy story? Hey, as I say, I'm done and I'll let you have the last word. I DO respect your intelligence, and I'll read what you put on here (as I have done all along), but when I see you put that last stuff on about the BBC report re WTC7 I strongly suspect you never read one word of the link I put up, as the full explanation is there. But let's agree to disagree now, as both our positions are entrenched. The final curtain is yours.
Now the Pentagon Tom Roemer one of the 9\11 commissioners on CNN for me clearly ****s up and says missile, 59 secs long [video=youtube;cUmr9dFbf2c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUmr9dFbf2c&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
Just to be clear this is the angle the pentagon was hit at, this is how the plane would have had to be flown. Not possible for an airliner and almost impossible for a fighter please log in to view this image
The hollow nose cone of an aluminum aircraft went through this much reinforced building?? really please log in to view this image It was a granite missile, an anti ship missile that hit a ship,(the pentagon) just about the water line as it were. 70 ton armoured missile. please log in to view this image A typical US cruise missile would have done far more damage, this granite never exploded, and it is claimed was a nuclear device of 500 kilotons, had it detonated then **** bye bye pentagon, why hijack a plane and fly it into the pentagon and literally do very little damage to the entire building even if it was possible to fly an airlines at literally ground level. All imo of course 22 of these were apparently stolen from the Kursk before it was salvaged, one ended up lodged in the pentagon.
As I've said Tobes, if they have the technology to produce nuclear energy with virtually no fall out/radiation, then why the **** are we kicking off wars in the Middle East over their oil when all the west's energy needs are catered for for the next century?
it's not whether I believe it or not, it is the many unanswered questions I am curious about, and lets face it, you have no clue, how would you, all you are armed with is your opinion it is the only theory that explains a lot of things that happened that day that no other explanation comes even close to, it encompasses everything regarding the towers and the aftermath including leukemia people got 1-2 years later and needed bone marrow transplants from chronic radiation poisoning, look up chronic radiation poisoning and the differences between alpha beta and gamma radiation to see how there was not Donga's apocalyptic fallout scenario. Asbestos? Complete bollocks proven to be complete bollocks, not by me but by doctors and scientists, you know those people who are what you aren't, experts who don't rest on a bloated ego with no background education on the subject matter. But they shall be ignored because your uneducated opinion, much like Donga's are worth more than any amount of qualifications and experience as well as evidence which points to the lie about what happened. You obviously haven't read much of this and just popped in at the end to give your tuppence worth so you don't actually know what you are referring to when asking "what I believe" which is quite lame actually and fits in totally with your sense of self worth on ANY subject no matter what it is you value your opinion greatly do you not The other guy tries to link United to Nazis and sees conspiracy in everything he is interested in, but just can't accept things don't add up on this matter and like you has a derisory jab at anyone that doesn't believe exactly what you believe The pair of you especially the other fella make me laugh, always ready to mock someone for asking questions and comparing the official line to the facts on the ground and ignoring the unprovable points and look at what is there that cannot be explained away. So why did you even bother posting Tobes other than your need to tell someone else they are wrong Pathetic really when you think about it. "I gotta go, someone somewhere on the internet is wrong"
