Does Anyone Have Any Questions?

ZachM said:
Thanks to the people who started this forum, which I found through 911blogger.com. I'm familiar with the explosives theory on the WTC, and have a couple questions:

1) Can we rule out faulty construction in the WTC collapse?

2) Although WTC 7 was not struck by a plane, it must have been exposed to the seismic force of two of the world's largest skyscrapers collapsing across the street. Could this force, in conjunction with construction flaws, explain WTC 7's collapse?
Click to expand...

Hi Zach... thanks for signing up... admittedly, these aren't my strong suits... however, I will try to answer them to the best of my ability...

1) Yes. Those buildings were built PHENOMENALLY well.

2) If that's the case, then why didn't every building surrounding the towers fall as well?
 
2) If that's the case, then why didn't every building surrounding the towers fall as well?
Click to expand...
Some people might argue that in earthquakes it is common for buildings to be affected differently, even if they are right next to each other.

I think the questions above will become more frequent as the 9/11 truth movement grows. They were some of my first thoughts when I first started studying the controlled demolition theory, and they came up again when I wrote about WTC 7 in my blog. You can read the reactions of some very intelligent people who still believe the official story:

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=93&showentry=1368#comments
 
ZachM said:
Some people might argue that in earthquakes it is common for buildings to be affected differently, even if they are right next to each other.

I think the questions above will become more frequent as the 9/11 truth movement grows. They were some of my first thoughts when I first started studying the controlled demolition theory, and they came up again when I wrote about WTC 7 in my blog. You can read the reactions of some very intelligent people who still believe the official story:

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=93&showentry=1368#comments
Click to expand...

Thanks Zach... have you seen 911revisited?
 
Yeah, 911revisted is the best documentary on the subject I've seen. The news reports of so many people hearing explosions was quite a shock.
 
ZachM said:
Yeah, 911revisted is the best documentary on the subject I've seen. The news reports of so many people hearing explosions was quite a shock.
Click to expand...

Yes... Dr. Griffin said it's the best he's ever seen.
 
Gold9472 said:
Hi Zach... thanks for signing up... admittedly, these aren't my strong suits... however, I will try to answer them to the best of my ability...

1) Yes. Those buildings were built PHENOMENALLY well.

2) If that's the case, then why didn't every building surrounding the towers fall as well?
Click to expand...

just a question, is it true that other buildings besides WTC7 partially or fully collapsed that were int he vicinity of WTc 1 & 2?

i have heard this on several 911 debunking sites with little or no proof. One of them they mention is a church and another building not part of the WTC complex
 
yes

awepittance said:
just a question, is it true that other buildings besides WTC7 partially or fully collapsed that were int he vicinity of WTc 1 & 2?

i have heard this on several 911 debunking sites with little or no proof. One of them they mention is a church and another building not part of the WTC complex
Click to expand...

Yes, WTC 5 and 6 were also badly banged up. Click here
 
Oh, and another thing..

The Deutsche Bank building was right next to one of the two towers, and it's still standing to this day. What's interesting about this is this building is much closer to where the towers were compared to WTC7, which was a whole city block away. If we're to believe that WTC7 fell from peripheral damage from the collapse of the two towers, than surely this building would definitely have been toast.
Of course, this building is going to be taken down soon. This reminds me of when the government chopped off large parts of the tree which totally obscured Oswald's view of Kennedy from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository. When the tree was intact, Oswald would have had to shoot through very thick tree branches and leaves (which basically totally obscured the view of the street). By cutting down parts of the tree, they were trying to make it seem like he had a clear view.
But then again, he was never even on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting anyway!
 
Flight 93 flyers

I need a good, comprehensive flyer that mentions the fact that cell phones could not be used in 2001 on an airplane...

Please forward to [email protected]
 
EminemsRevenge said:
Sheeple with a limited knowledge of history... http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERreichstagF.htm shows that there is a precedent...
Click to expand...

My question is: who told the truth about the Reichstag fire? The Nazis or their victorious enemies? I really don't know who to believe. Many of the post-war "confessions" and "witness testimonies" were extracted by means of torture, intimidation, extortion, deception, etc. Any witness for the defense who contradicted the "witnesses" or "evidence" presented by the likes of Robert M. Kempner and Benjamin B. Ferencz were prime candidates for a cell adjacent to the defendant on trial. See for example http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/05-15-46.htm.

A careful study of the post-WWII victor's show trials will do much to illuminate what is now taking place regarding 9-11. Nonetheless, I don't wish to follow this tangent in the context of 9-11 investigations. If you are interested in this sort of thing I suggest you begin here: http://www.google.com/search?q=Walter+Lüftl
 
Q: People like Wayne Madsen and others say Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania, others say the flight that crashed there WAS NOT Flight 93; and that the real Flight 93 landed in a nearby airport. What's the deal?
 
PhilosophyGenius said:
Q: People like Wayne Madsen and others say Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania, others say the flight that crashed there WAS NOT Flight 93; and that the real Flight 93 landed in a nearby airport. What's the deal?
Click to expand...

I too am totally confused over flight 93. Eyewitnesses report different things and the site seems the biggest puzzle of all. After all, if they were going to fake a crash, why not make it look like a crash?
As with the story of the goat at Booker, the ineptitude of the presentation is odd for a top secret national deception such as 911 appears to be. I am day by day drifiting towards a cock-up AND conspiracy position.
 
The Cleveland airport story is probably not true. I spoke with the person who originally posted it, and she sent me this...

Jonathan,

A newswire like the AP or Reuters is a pretty common thing. I think it'd benefit you to check out some textbooks on journalism. They will explain that when wire bulletins are recalled, no one literally "calls" you. Instead, there's a retraction on the wire itself.

Most of the questions we receive about this story are centered on how a newsroom works.

http://blogs.scripps.com/wcpo/staff/2006/02/wcpocoms_flight_93_story.html

Liz
 
Gold9472 said:
Andrew... have you seen the "shoot down" evidence?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think it is the most likely story. But it doesn't explain that weird crater .

Oh, and another thing. I learned from the debunking website that wtc7 fell down tilted towards the south and not 'straight down' as Jones and Griffin assert. isn't it a shame that they are not being wholly truthful?
 
AndrewLoweWatson said:
Yes, I think it is the most likely story. But it doesn't explain that weird crater .

Oh, and another thing. I learned from the debunking website that wtc7 fell down tilted towards the south and not 'straight down' as Jones and Griffin assert. isn't it a shame that they are not being wholly truthful?
Click to expand...

Are you being sarcastic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top