Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

[StarLord]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

You get a large BINGO on that one Cary.

Ask yourself two things. What could they possibly be trying to hide (files, disks, information) in the other buildings? What would the reason be for preping those Towers with controled implosion explosives?

We have all seen old buildings imploded before. They fall EXACTLY like the two towers did. There is also allusions to vaporized steel created from high energy explosives needed to shear through beams of the size used to build those towers. Aviation fuel and or JP5 does not get hot enough to vaporize steel.

When I was watching the towers fall, my subconscious was firing off msgs to my conscious that took months for me to be aware of. The biggie was "Hmmm, since when did they schedule those Towers for Implosion, I never heard they were going to do that, they usually let everyone know before hand, as it is great entertainment to watch"........

 

[StarLord]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

You get a large BINGO on that one Cary.

Ask yourself two things. What could they possibly be trying to hide (files, disks, information) in the other buildings? What would the reason be for preping those Towers with controled implosion explosives?

We have all seen old buildings imploded before. They fall EXACTLY like the two towers did. There is also allusions to vaporized steel created from high energy explosives needed to shear through beams of the size used to build those towers. Aviation fuel and or JP5 does not get hot enough to vaporize steel.

When I was watching the towers fall, my subconscious was firing off msgs to my conscious that took months for me to be aware of. The biggie was "Hmmm, since when did they schedule those Towers for Implosion, I never heard they were going to do that, they usually let everyone know before hand, as it is great entertainment to watch"........

 

[Grayson]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

Originally posted by CaryP@Aug 14 2004, 11:15 AM

What if, *and I know this sounds crazy*, but what if John simply meant that Waco was one event where the government attacked the people of the U.S. and that other events like that would happen. I believe that the government was involved in the Sept. 11th attacks, with the greatest questions arising from the collapse of WTC 7.

Lonewolf,

Sounds like you and I have seen some of the same material. Big question about WTC 7 isn't there?

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the entire WTC complex, is interviewed on a post 9/11 events video tape produced by PBS called "Rebuilding America". In this program Mr. Silverstein talks about the destruction of WTC 7. He says that the decision was made to "pull the building" on the afternoon of 9/11 because of damage to the building. The term "pull the building" is used by demolition experts to describe the controlled demolition of buildings.

You've seen them on TV. An old building is scheduled for destruction. It takes months for the preparation and execution of such events.

1)The structure and plans of the building have to be obtained and studied by the demolition crew.
2)Permits have to obtained and demolition times have to be coordinated with law enforcement and fire officials.
3)Explosives have to be acquired.
4)Demolition charges and wiring must be placed strategically throughout the to-be-destroyed building.
5)All the wiring has to be run through a control board that will ensure that demolition charges are detonated in the proper sequence to bring the building down in a controlled manner to minimize the area of rubble post-demolition.

I'm no demolitions expert but, IT TAKES MONTHS TO DO THIS. WTC 7 was "pulled" in a matter of hours. It was no small building, about 50 stories if memory serves. I've stayed at the WTC Marriot in May 2001. The WTC complex was huge and covered acres of land, about 17 if memory serves. WTC 7 wasn't even that close to the two main towers. It was NOT physically damaged by their collapse. Do you think a demolition crew would have tried to put explosives in a building that had a few fires burning in it? How could the large amount of explosives needed for the task be brought into the building in the few hours between the time the decision was supposedly made to pull the building and its destruction? Not to mention wire all of the charges together, and run them through an electronic control panel, etc., etc. There is no way the plans could have been studied in time. I guess what I'm saying is that the controlled demolition of WTC 7 within a period of a few hours was a VIRTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY unless all of the prep work had been done in advance. Plans studied, explosives obtained, explosives set in place with wiring, electronic control panel obtained and programmed, etc. AHEAD OF TIME. To prepare for the demolition ahead of time implies that the 9/11 event was known about ahead of time, and implicates a complicit federal govt. in its execution. There is no way to pull such an event off without the cooperation or at least the acquiesence of a complicit federal govt.

Remember a "Pearl Harbor" event was needed according to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) so that the American global military expedition could be launched to bring about "Pax Americana" - one of their main projects. Who are founding members of PNAC? Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, White House advisors Perle and Feith, and the list goes on. PNAC was started in the late 1990's. You think they might have been planning for or looking for someone to give them their "Pearl Harbor" event since inception? Osama bin Laden is a bought and paid for CIA asset. al Qaeda is a bought and paid for CIA asset. Saddam Hussein is a bought and paid for CIA asset. Who controls the CIA? Think about it. It's not the White House.

WTC 7 wasn't damaged by the destruction of the the north and south towers. There were maybe a few fires going in WTC 7. Fires from what? No one seems to be able to come up with the answers for that. WTC 7 was the home of FEMA, the CIA, the FBI, and the Secret Service to name a few of the federal agencies housed there. Rudy Guilianni went there first on the morning of 9/11. He was told to leave WTC 7 because "there are bombs in the building" that morning. Sorry folks. I know it sounds "conspiracy theory." I know it's incredible to believe that the fed. govt. would be complicit in something like the 9/11 event. But the evidence just doesn't stack up in favor of the official govt. explanation.

What's really remarkable is that WTC's 4, 5, and 6 were all partially damaged by the collapse of the north and south towers. They could have been more easily destroyed in a controlled demolition and on a shorter time schedule. Permits would have been easily granted. Buildings were empty, and the area was already under the control of police and fire officials during the rescue and clean up operation. Guess when WTC 4, 5 and 6 were "pulled"? Mid-December of 2001. It took two months to "pull" partially destroyed and evacuated buildings, which is faster than normal for the process. But the few hours it took to "pull" WTC 7 in the middle of all the ruckus of the day - just ain't possible.

Here's another one to ponder. The north and south towers collapsed in a text book "controlled demolition" fashion. Watch the video of their collapse. There are sites all over the web that have them. The US Geological Survey picked up shock waves equivalent to a series of controlled explosives about 10 to 15 seconds BEFORE each of the towers began their controlled collapse. Sounds conspiracy theory? You ain't heard much yet.

Cary

​

Cary: Just to address a few points that you have made here. I just got off the phone to a friend of mine who specialises in blowing things up. He's asked me not to give too much away, so suffice to say that he has been blowing things up for 23 years now and knows a thing or two about it.

I've read your post to him and he is emphatic that at least a month is required to lay the charges required for this kind of exercise. That after all the planning and permissions, which are different in the UK to the US but he believes that they are principally the same in the amount of scrutiny that they must endure in the interests of safety. He has destroyed tanks in the line of his work and states that even this straightforward exercise can take a day or two to plan and implement.

His only other useful, in terms of what I can remember and translate, comment was this; Pre-charges are set off in order to gather charge momentum in a controlled demolition, these generate -S- waves which can be recorded through the ground. Depending on the distance to any monitors nearby, it is not impossible to have detected the charges being sequentially pre-fired to culminate in absolute detonation. This would create a timelag between cause and effect.

I may Google -S- waves to see if this makes sense. He has explained them too me and I can't make head nor tail of their speed relative to sound in air and am too embarrassed to question a point that he took great pains to explain to me, in order for me too understand his reasoning here.

So, in my mind, there is depth to your argument. I think that we can be overly sensitive to issues with conspiratorial overtones, so spoke to my friend to see if he could strip some wheat from the chaff. I beleive, after talking too him, that the dealyed detonation/detection argument is not the one to concentrate on. WTC 7 is another matter however.

I am going to take up some of the links posted here and do some digging of my own as this is both a fascinating and deeply worrying argument, particularly given the social laziness that prevails in our time.

Are we being manipulated by Puppet Masters of our own creation? I don't know, but I have seen some wierd stuff in my brief life, stuff that I have been forced to ignore, evidence that has been removed or edited, stuff that I have edited myself. Some say that -The Truth is out There-. I prefer to believe that -The Lies are out There-, waiting to be uncovered.

I wanna say more, but I have tea to cook. I am certain that intellects far vaster than mine will bear down on this thorny issue and dazzle me with their masterful dissection of this debate, stripping the lies away and revealing a nub of truth. So, I wait patiently in the best aisle seat I can find, popcorn in hand.

The spelling and grammar are apalling here, sorry.

 

[Grayson]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

Originally posted by CaryP@Aug 14 2004, 11:15 AM

What if, *and I know this sounds crazy*, but what if John simply meant that Waco was one event where the government attacked the people of the U.S. and that other events like that would happen. I believe that the government was involved in the Sept. 11th attacks, with the greatest questions arising from the collapse of WTC 7.

Lonewolf,

Sounds like you and I have seen some of the same material. Big question about WTC 7 isn't there?

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the entire WTC complex, is interviewed on a post 9/11 events video tape produced by PBS called "Rebuilding America". In this program Mr. Silverstein talks about the destruction of WTC 7. He says that the decision was made to "pull the building" on the afternoon of 9/11 because of damage to the building. The term "pull the building" is used by demolition experts to describe the controlled demolition of buildings.

You've seen them on TV. An old building is scheduled for destruction. It takes months for the preparation and execution of such events.

1)The structure and plans of the building have to be obtained and studied by the demolition crew.
2)Permits have to obtained and demolition times have to be coordinated with law enforcement and fire officials.
3)Explosives have to be acquired.
4)Demolition charges and wiring must be placed strategically throughout the to-be-destroyed building.
5)All the wiring has to be run through a control board that will ensure that demolition charges are detonated in the proper sequence to bring the building down in a controlled manner to minimize the area of rubble post-demolition.

I'm no demolitions expert but, IT TAKES MONTHS TO DO THIS. WTC 7 was "pulled" in a matter of hours. It was no small building, about 50 stories if memory serves. I've stayed at the WTC Marriot in May 2001. The WTC complex was huge and covered acres of land, about 17 if memory serves. WTC 7 wasn't even that close to the two main towers. It was NOT physically damaged by their collapse. Do you think a demolition crew would have tried to put explosives in a building that had a few fires burning in it? How could the large amount of explosives needed for the task be brought into the building in the few hours between the time the decision was supposedly made to pull the building and its destruction? Not to mention wire all of the charges together, and run them through an electronic control panel, etc., etc. There is no way the plans could have been studied in time. I guess what I'm saying is that the controlled demolition of WTC 7 within a period of a few hours was a VIRTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY unless all of the prep work had been done in advance. Plans studied, explosives obtained, explosives set in place with wiring, electronic control panel obtained and programmed, etc. AHEAD OF TIME. To prepare for the demolition ahead of time implies that the 9/11 event was known about ahead of time, and implicates a complicit federal govt. in its execution. There is no way to pull such an event off without the cooperation or at least the acquiesence of a complicit federal govt.

Remember a "Pearl Harbor" event was needed according to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) so that the American global military expedition could be launched to bring about "Pax Americana" - one of their main projects. Who are founding members of PNAC? Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, White House advisors Perle and Feith, and the list goes on. PNAC was started in the late 1990's. You think they might have been planning for or looking for someone to give them their "Pearl Harbor" event since inception? Osama bin Laden is a bought and paid for CIA asset. al Qaeda is a bought and paid for CIA asset. Saddam Hussein is a bought and paid for CIA asset. Who controls the CIA? Think about it. It's not the White House.

WTC 7 wasn't damaged by the destruction of the the north and south towers. There were maybe a few fires going in WTC 7. Fires from what? No one seems to be able to come up with the answers for that. WTC 7 was the home of FEMA, the CIA, the FBI, and the Secret Service to name a few of the federal agencies housed there. Rudy Guilianni went there first on the morning of 9/11. He was told to leave WTC 7 because "there are bombs in the building" that morning. Sorry folks. I know it sounds "conspiracy theory." I know it's incredible to believe that the fed. govt. would be complicit in something like the 9/11 event. But the evidence just doesn't stack up in favor of the official govt. explanation.

What's really remarkable is that WTC's 4, 5, and 6 were all partially damaged by the collapse of the north and south towers. They could have been more easily destroyed in a controlled demolition and on a shorter time schedule. Permits would have been easily granted. Buildings were empty, and the area was already under the control of police and fire officials during the rescue and clean up operation. Guess when WTC 4, 5 and 6 were "pulled"? Mid-December of 2001. It took two months to "pull" partially destroyed and evacuated buildings, which is faster than normal for the process. But the few hours it took to "pull" WTC 7 in the middle of all the ruckus of the day - just ain't possible.

Here's another one to ponder. The north and south towers collapsed in a text book "controlled demolition" fashion. Watch the video of their collapse. There are sites all over the web that have them. The US Geological Survey picked up shock waves equivalent to a series of controlled explosives about 10 to 15 seconds BEFORE each of the towers began their controlled collapse. Sounds conspiracy theory? You ain't heard much yet.

Cary

​

Cary: Just to address a few points that you have made here. I just got off the phone to a friend of mine who specialises in blowing things up. He's asked me not to give too much away, so suffice to say that he has been blowing things up for 23 years now and knows a thing or two about it.

I've read your post to him and he is emphatic that at least a month is required to lay the charges required for this kind of exercise. That after all the planning and permissions, which are different in the UK to the US but he believes that they are principally the same in the amount of scrutiny that they must endure in the interests of safety. He has destroyed tanks in the line of his work and states that even this straightforward exercise can take a day or two to plan and implement.

His only other useful, in terms of what I can remember and translate, comment was this; Pre-charges are set off in order to gather charge momentum in a controlled demolition, these generate -S- waves which can be recorded through the ground. Depending on the distance to any monitors nearby, it is not impossible to have detected the charges being sequentially pre-fired to culminate in absolute detonation. This would create a timelag between cause and effect.

I may Google -S- waves to see if this makes sense. He has explained them too me and I can't make head nor tail of their speed relative to sound in air and am too embarrassed to question a point that he took great pains to explain to me, in order for me too understand his reasoning here.

So, in my mind, there is depth to your argument. I think that we can be overly sensitive to issues with conspiratorial overtones, so spoke to my friend to see if he could strip some wheat from the chaff. I beleive, after talking too him, that the dealyed detonation/detection argument is not the one to concentrate on. WTC 7 is another matter however.

I am going to take up some of the links posted here and do some digging of my own as this is both a fascinating and deeply worrying argument, particularly given the social laziness that prevails in our time.

Are we being manipulated by Puppet Masters of our own creation? I don't know, but I have seen some wierd stuff in my brief life, stuff that I have been forced to ignore, evidence that has been removed or edited, stuff that I have edited myself. Some say that -The Truth is out There-. I prefer to believe that -The Lies are out There-, waiting to be uncovered.

I wanna say more, but I have tea to cook. I am certain that intellects far vaster than mine will bear down on this thorny issue and dazzle me with their masterful dissection of this debate, stripping the lies away and revealing a nub of truth. So, I wait patiently in the best aisle seat I can find, popcorn in hand.

The spelling and grammar are apalling here, sorry.

 

[StarLord]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

Greyson and all, I have brought up this link before check out:

'Lets Roll! 911 Made Simple'

do a search on google with that exact wording. I think that Hack came up with the last exact link the last time. Tere are some interesting ideas there.

Pass the Popcorn Please

 

[StarLord]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

Greyson and all, I have brought up this link before check out:

'Lets Roll! 911 Made Simple'

do a search on google with that exact wording. I think that Hack came up with the last exact link the last time. Tere are some interesting ideas there.

Pass the Popcorn Please

 

[Judge Bean]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

The best "conspiracy theories" are the ones that cannot be proven or disproven. If the official story is wrong, then the planes were a delivery system for the ignition of the blasts. We should get answers to what it was that looks added to the fuselage. Is it in fact a bomb or missile? That the government may have wanted 911, and may have benefited from it, are not the same as proof that the government caused or allowed 911.

 

[Judge Bean]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

The best "conspiracy theories" are the ones that cannot be proven or disproven. If the official story is wrong, then the planes were a delivery system for the ignition of the blasts. We should get answers to what it was that looks added to the fuselage. Is it in fact a bomb or missile? That the government may have wanted 911, and may have benefited from it, are not the same as proof that the government caused or allowed 911.

 

[pauli]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

Hey guys,

Sorry I checked out of this for a little while. Actually, I saw a very interesting program on PBS about 6 months after 9-11 where structural engineers tackled the whole, "why did the buildings collapse as they did?" question. If I can find a link to them, I will add it into the mix.

They went into great detail to explain all of the intricacies of the building's fall, the differences between how - and why - each tower collapsed and came up with their own answers to it. If nothing else, it is a good source to review. I thought their presentation to be quite adequate to explain why the towers came down. And, at the end of it, they did say, "Yes, it is possible that two planes loaded with jet fuel could accomplish the collapse of both towers." However, in the spirit of open minded discussion, I will also review any other information available that you all provide.

Thanks Paul for the level-headed approach on my postings. You might not agree with me in the particulars, or in the general, but I appreciate your spirit nonetheless.

Addendum: Gee and I thought it would be difficult to find the link. It was a NOVA production. Here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

 

[pauli]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

Hey guys,

Sorry I checked out of this for a little while. Actually, I saw a very interesting program on PBS about 6 months after 9-11 where structural engineers tackled the whole, "why did the buildings collapse as they did?" question. If I can find a link to them, I will add it into the mix.

They went into great detail to explain all of the intricacies of the building's fall, the differences between how - and why - each tower collapsed and came up with their own answers to it. If nothing else, it is a good source to review. I thought their presentation to be quite adequate to explain why the towers came down. And, at the end of it, they did say, "Yes, it is possible that two planes loaded with jet fuel could accomplish the collapse of both towers." However, in the spirit of open minded discussion, I will also review any other information available that you all provide.

Thanks Paul for the level-headed approach on my postings. You might not agree with me in the particulars, or in the general, but I appreciate your spirit nonetheless.

Addendum: Gee and I thought it would be difficult to find the link. It was a NOVA production. Here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/