Dont worry if you feel bad, its a right of passage in the off topic forum.

Pault.. I don't know who brainwashed you, but everyone around here is proving to be smarter than college professors. A conspiracy is just a bunch of paranoid people brainwashing others while making up a story that seems reasonable. SNAP OUT OF IT! Don't fall under their power unless you want to waste your life like them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you need to do more reading. For example, my original post. For example, the book I posted about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To give you something easy, think about WTC Building Seven. Read about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dont worry if you feel bad, its a right of passage in the off topic forum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't worry, I won't. I think your rite about everything, especially after you went to all the trouble to actually read my posts. Seriously, leave this thread alone if you lack critical thinking skills, petulant child.

Dont worry if you feel bad, its a right of passage in the off topic forum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True. The new guy usually gets picked on a decent bit before they settle in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you really want me to comment on the facts you posted..

 

 

 

The facts the public get are the ones the media gives us. The media changes words so that we read things differently and the media is capable of making mistakes.

If you really want me to comment on the facts you posted..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously I posted them so bickering children could tell me not to feel bad that I'm an idiot for making a controversial and interesting post full of facts.

Ohhhhh! A flame war! Can I come? Can I? Can I? Pleeeeease?

What?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Silversteins statement is completely at odds with the governments official version, and my point is, the 9/11 commision didn't report on this at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I don't fail, I win.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The document published pre-Silverstein's admitting of using controlled demolition to collapse tower 7, blaming the collapse on gas fire and debre from the towers. This was false yes, and several people tried to convince the FBI they were wrong, but they were hard headed (like the government is), and waved it off as a conspiracy. They never knew it was a controlled demolition until Silverstein admitted it on PBS a few years later. He imploded it for insurance reasons (not because the mayors bunker was there, or because the FBI had offices there), no one was in the building at the time, it was around 5 pm, and he stated he imploded it so he could get full insurance value for the entire complex, it was the only thing standing in his way and the full insurance money. The government has no reason to hide this truth, they were as mislead as the public, only Silverstein, his close employees, and Controlled Demolition Inc. knew the real truth.

 

If you really want me to comment on the facts you posted..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously I posted them so bickering children could tell me not to feel bad that I'm an idiot for making a controversial and interesting post full of facts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A fact is the absolute truth. Example: H2O is water. That is a fact. What you're posting is what the media has told you. The media does not have to tell the absolute truth. They can twist their words..

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 27842.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything about this "consperice" debunked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, if there is anything I hate it's the people who think 9/11 is a conspericy.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything about this "consperice" debunked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, if there is anything I hate it's the people who think 9/11 is a conspericy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the Traveling to the Moom conspiracy? ;)

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything about this "consperice" debunked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, if there is anything I hate it's the people who think 9/11 is a conspericy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And everything else for that matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the Traveling to the Moom conspiracy? ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ofcourse the consparicy is correct... it was filmed in a studio...I proved that in my post in this thread... :roll:.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything about this "consperice" debunked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, if there is anything I hate it's the people who think 9/11 is a conspericy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And everything else for that matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah.. Why do people feel the need to turn everything that is done into a conspiracy?

 

 

 

The document published pre-Silverstein's admitting of using controlled demolition to collapse tower 7, blaming the collapse on gas fire and debre from the towers. This was false yes, and several people tried to convince the FBI they were wrong, but they were hard headed (like the government is), and waved it off as a conspiracy. They never knew it was a controlled demolition until Silverstein admitted it on PBS a few years later. He imploded it for insurance reasons (not because the mayors bunker was there, or because the FBI had offices there), no one was in the building at the time, it was around 5 pm, and he stated he imploded it so he could get full insurance value for the entire complex, it was the only thing standing in his way and the full insurance money. The government has no reason to hide this truth, they were as mislead as the public, only Silverstein, his close employees, and Controlled Demolition Inc. knew the real truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The PBS doc where Silverstein said "Pull it" was on on September 10, 2002.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 9/11 Commission closed on August 21, 2004.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shouldn't he have been invested for insurance fraud?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How could he plan and set up the demolition of a tall building without months of planning?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why did the government make up false theories and propogate them when it was clear what had happened from the start?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything about this "consperice" debunked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, if there is anything I hate it's the people who think 9/11 is a conspericy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm, belligerent blathering blatherskite alert. You obviously didn't read much of my original post, because the popular mechanics debunking article (which I have read in detail, several times) debunks only the wildest elements of the 9/11 truth movement, often is wrong anyway, and doesn't address most of the most pressing issues related to the attacks.

A fact is the absolute truth. Example: H2O is water. That is a fact. What you're posting is what the media has told you. The media does not have to tell the absolute truth. They can twist their words..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They even have a professional high-paying job for that. I was watching a program on it. They're called "spin doctors". Looks like a fun job imo. :P.

 

 

 

A fact is the absolute truth. Example: H2O is water. That is a fact. What you're posting is what the media has told you. The media does not have to tell the absolute truth. They can twist their words..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was reffering to the list of facts I posted regarding the 9/11 Commision Reports Lies. They are facts, they support my position that the 9/11 commision report is full of lies. You claim to be educated on the difference between fact and opinion, media bias and hard truth. Please respond to at least a few of the facts in the link below? You can't refute them; the government lied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm

The PBS doc where Silverstein said "Pull it" was on on September 10, 2002.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 9/11 Commission closed on August 21, 2004.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shouldn't he have been invested for insurance fraud?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, it is illegal to blow up a building for insurance, but I don't know the full story. I assume he used a loop hole of some sort, he knew what he was doing enough to build a new complex.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How could he plan and set up the demolition of a tall building without months of planning?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Months of planning is equal to gutting the building. He didn't gut the building, he left everything where it sat. And gave Controlled Demolition Inc. a few hours to review the support structure of the building. After that it was just a matter of setting up explosives on the exterior supporting columns. The demolition wasn't perfect, there's even a fault line very visible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why did the government make up false theories and propagate them when it was clear what had happened from the start?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They had no idea he did it until he admitted it. They stressed that it was due to fire, and made themselves look like an idiot when he admitted to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, if there is anything I hate it's the people who think 9/11 is a conspericy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree %150. :D

 

The PBS doc where Silverstein said "Pull it" was on on September 10, 2002.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 9/11 Commission closed on August 21, 2004.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shouldn't he have been invested for insurance fraud?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, it is illegal to blow up a building for insurance, but I don't know the full story. I assume he used a loop hole of some sort, he knew what he was doing enough to build a new complex.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How could he plan and set up the demolition of a tall building without months of planning?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Months of planning is equal to gutting the building. He didn't gut the building, he left everything where it sat. And gave Controlled Demolition Inc. a few hours to review the support structure of the building. After that it was just a matter of setting up explosives on the exterior supporting columns. The demolition wasn't perfect, there's even a fault line very visible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why did the government make up false theories and propagate them when it was clear what had happened from the start?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They had no idea he did it until he admitted it. They stressed that it was due to fire, and made themselves look like an idiot when he admitted to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, if there is anything I hate it's the people who think 9/11 is a conspericy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree %150. :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Viktorkrum77, the 9/11 Commision mentioned none of this why?

 

 

 

Did you know Silverstein only got the lease six months before 9/11?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why would it be the first thing on Silversteins mind, right after a national crisis, to call in a demolition company and blow up one of his already damaged buildings? You say insurance reasons, and that there is "Probably" a loophole, back that up?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There were no major newspaper stories on this why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It just doesn't make any sense at all. Besides, controlled demolitions take a long time to set up and be done. You should know this.

I have a hint about life:

 

 

 

Its alot less complicated then it seems :wink:.

I have a hint about life:

 

 

 

Its alot less complicated then it seems Wink.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right, which is why you can explain exactly 0 of the factual errors in the 9/11 Commission Report I have posted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will you please leave this thread? Several times you have proven with ease that you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If at some later point in your life you feel like engaging in a debate, responding to my points, arguing with me, or doing anything other than trying to insert pithy comments which reaffirm your own defense mechanisms against a harsh cruel world and your own silly insecurities, feel free to come back.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This article says Silverstein lied, see the page about WTC7. We know for fact it was a controlled demolition, there's no debating that, why are they insisting it's not? Both CDI and Silverstein admitted to it.

*sigh*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pault.. I give up on you. You're too hard headed for my taste and you keep turning things into conspiracies. NOT EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS A CONSPIRACY! Get out of your basement and live a little.. :roll:

Right, which is why you can explain exactly 0 of the factual errors in the 9/11 Commission Report I have posted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will you please leave this thread? Several times you have proven with ease that you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If at some later point in your life you feel like engaging in a debate, responding to my points, arguing with me, or doing anything other than trying to insert pithy comments which reaffirm your own defense mechanisms against a harsh cruel world and your own silly insecurities, feel free to come back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You cant argue with a consparicy theorist. They dont weild strong, absolute facts. Its like shooting rubber. Itll just bend and come right back at you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your at a great advantage; since its just a theory, you can bend it every which way you like, without any reprucussions. You've proven your skill at debating a topic that is vague and undefined, how bout coming to another one of the threads and debate there, and see how successful you are?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember, its possible to propose speculation, but not weild it. You are weilding it.

 

Right, which is why you can explain exactly 0 of the factual errors in the 9/11 Commission Report I have posted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will you please leave this thread? Several times you have proven with ease that you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If at some later point in your life you feel like engaging in a debate, responding to my points, arguing with me, or doing anything other than trying to insert pithy comments which reaffirm your own defense mechanisms against a harsh cruel world and your own silly insecurities, feel free to come back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You cant argue with a consparicy theorist. They dont weild strong, absolute facts. Its like shooting rubber. Itll just bend and come right back at you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your at a great advantage; since its just a theory, you can bend it every which way you like, without any reprucussions. You've proven your skill at debating a topic that is vague and undefined, how bout coming to another one of the threads and debate there, and see how successful you are?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suggest he find a topic that isn't simply a theory and debate it. *points at topic about spanking children*

 

 

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything about this "consperice" debunked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, if there is anything I hate it's the people who think 9/11 is a conspericy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm, belligerent blathering blatherskite alert. You obviously didn't read much of my original post, because the popular mechanics debunking article (which I have read in detail, several times) debunks only the wildest elements of the 9/11 truth movement, often is wrong anyway, and doesn't address most of the most pressing issues related to the attacks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really can't answer on your behalf, nor can I but do my best at attempting to sway your opinion, but I really don't care nor believe what a Mr. peter Meyers wrote, considering: a) He has no reputation B) I've never heard of him and c) I would rather believe someone who is reputable, knows what they are talking about, and can back up their information with known facts and articles.

Viktorkrum77, the 9/11 Commision mentioned none of this why?

 

 

 

Did you know Silverstein only got the lease six months before 9/11?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why would it be the first thing on Silversteins mind, right after a national crisis, to call in a demolition company and blow up one of his already damaged buildings? You say insurance reasons, and that there is "Probably" a loophole, back that up?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There were no major newspaper stories on this why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It just doesn't make any sense at all. Besides, controlled demolitions take a long time to set up and be done. You should know this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because insurers are set to pay around $861 million to Silverstein for the lost building 7, debt on the property is around $383 million.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now why not do it? It does not take long to set up a controlled demolition if you have experience with buildings, know similar layouts, and do not have to gut it. Gutting the building is what takes several months. Comparing the trapezoid WTC7 to the countless other buildings CDI has imploded, it would be easy for them to locate and know what supporting columns to collapse. Setting up explosives is as easy as drilling a hole in the column and wiring it.

*sigh*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pault.. I give up on you. You're too hard headed for my taste and you keep turning things into conspiracies. NOT EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS A CONSPIRACY! Get out of your basement and live a little.. :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why don't you prove him wrong instead of insulting him?