|
Post by shred on Oct 13, 2013 16:20:34 GMT -5
In 2001 did the US Government have a motive to stage a terrorist attack against it's own people ? If so what was that motive? And why four airliners ?
Wouldn't coordinated car bombing of New York City boroughs have the same result without wrecking the US economy and endangering two major airlines who nearly went bankrupt in the aftermath of the terrorist attack ? Car bombs would easier to stage than airline hijackings, and plane crashes don't you think ?
Wouldn't a truck bomb in times square have generated the same moral outrage ? Wouldn't a truck bomb attack be easier to 'false flag' ?
Wouldn't a 'foiled attack' have the government looking heroic, win over public trust and win backing for the invasion of Afghanistan following eight years of terrorist attacks against America, (1993-2001)?
What motive would any US Government have to murder nearly 3000 people by the following method?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 13, 2013 17:17:41 GMT -5
I sure would like to have the answer to all those questions myself. Without an INVESTIGATION, one is left to speculate. It's good you actually know how to ask some REAL questions though, it shows you're not completely brain dead. It's even worth a thumbs up.
That's why I keep saying you're a fraud, you never ask any questions about the official narrative, it's all 100% been solved, yet you ask all these questions, what a hypocritical fraud. So transparent, you can't be any more OBVIOUS. The only thing that's not so obvious is your agenda/motive.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 13, 2013 17:47:31 GMT -5
You've some cheek, you never question the conspiracy theories.
I investigated both sides of the argument I asked questions I found the answers and the conspiracy theorists have no evidence, no motive, nothing but speculation.
Why would your government carry out a hugely difficult to fake false flag attack that would kill thousands, had a massive chance of going wrong, directly damage your economy, damage your military headquarters and reduce the amount of war funds you'd need to launch a major invasion ? There is NO motive.
Far simpler hoaxes could be pulled off by a government intent on war that would be perfectly effective.
A truck bomb, one man one truck, times square, rush hour, bomber's face disguised, cctv confiscated by FBI. Drug dealer fitted up, planted evidence pointing to Afghanistan / Iraq. All surviving eyewitnesses would testify to having seen a truck bomb, it's so much simpler yet would have generated just as much moral outrage. Two or three truck bombs could have been used throughout NY with just one driver per truck. Such a plot would require very few people to be in on it.
Think rationally and challenge the conspiracy theories.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 13, 2013 18:45:38 GMT -5
"You've some cheek, you never question the conspiracy theories."
The official narrative is the most notorious conspiracy theory there is. It makes no sense and it's full of PROVEN omissions, lies, contradictions and fabrications. I question it daily because almost every single day, a new lie, omission and/or contradiction is discovered. Regardless, all it is a conspiracy theory based on nothing (i.e. NO INVESTIGATION). It's you who never questions it.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 14, 2013 4:31:34 GMT -5
You've no evidence to make that claim, and you've no evidence of motive either.
Come on, if the US Government were going to stage a terrorist attack there'd be no lose ends. Truck bombs and car bombs are easy to plant. Lots of people would have died and the American economy would be strong enough to provide war funds. Very easy for a truck bomber to disappear into a crowd of people and very easy to put the person behind the bombing in charge of the investigation.
Four planes belonging to American Airlines and United Airlines, were destroyed that day in a manner that is horrendously difficult to fake. It would require the airlines to be complicit, air traffic control, you're saying NORAD were complicit, you're claiming buildings were rigged for demolition, that would require the NY Port Authority to be in on it, and the people who worked in the towers to be in on it. Far too complicated to fake and not logical.
If your Government were to stage a terrorist attack involving airliners, the simplest way with the fewest loose ends would have been to have had bombs blow them up mid flight.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 14, 2013 6:35:17 GMT -5
"You've no evidence to make that claim"
For you? None whatsoever, you pretend everything you've been fed is 100% fact. For those who want the truth, the evidence that it's nothing more than a conspiracy theory full of lies, omissions, distortions and fabrications is overwhelming. What's been posted in this forum to date is probably just the tip of the iceberg. There will be more coming, like I said, more and more comes out nearly every day.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 14, 2013 7:37:51 GMT -5
I used to be a conspiracy theorist like you are. I have researched investigated all the facts listened to both sides of the argument and applied common sense.
Middle eastern terrorists learned to fly in the USA and gained commercial pilot's licences. They bought GPS devices, they boarded planes with knives and mace. They hijacked airliners took over control and crashed them. Airliners hit the twin towers at speeds beyond design limits taking out columns and starting widespread and intense office fires far more serious than anything the designers had considered.
Steel is malleable. At higher temperatures it becomes weaker and more easy to shape. I've shown you photographic evidence of the steel buckling under load and giving way.
No burning building has ever been brought down by explosive controlled demolition. Lots of steel buildings have been brought down by fire.
No sequence of explosives are audible in the collapse footage of any WTC building.
If the buildings had been pre rigged with explosives, why fly planes through the very floors which give way first ? And how could any explosives survive the jet fuel explosions without being set off ? Why aren't explosives audible in collapse footage ?
Why would any government go to such elaborate lengths to bring down the towers when a simpler mass casualty attack would be far easier to stage and get away with and not leave loose ends?
Why would any government blow up building 7 ? And how could any explosives survive the fires within WTC7 ? Why would firefighters pull out of WTC 7 if the fires in it weren't serious ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 14, 2013 7:48:49 GMT -5
"I used to be a conspiracy theorist like you are."
I'm not a "conspiracy theorist", I'm a truth seeker. Demanding the truth when one knows you can't get it from government and its puppet media does not make me a "conspiracy theorist". That's just a ready made label designed to silence and denigrate those who question whatever one is fed by government and its complicit media. Indoctrinated sheep such as yourself are fully versed in how to apply the "conspiracy theorist", "kook", "tin foil hat" and all such propaganda labels to anyone and everyone who questions government propaganda. What you used to be or are today is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with 9/11. What you are is nothing more than an anonymous poster in a mostly anonymous message forum with a 9/11 disinformation agenda.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 14, 2013 8:09:19 GMT -5
You are a conspiracy theorist, just like I used to be.
And though George W Bush's government was horrible, and rendition and torture is horrible, and war is horrible, make no mistake, accusing George W Bush of being behind 9/11 is like accusing Peter William Sutcliffe of Dr Harold Shipman's murders.
There is NO motive for George W Bush to even attempt to carry out such a complicated hoax. If he'd had a motive the attack would have been far more basic.
Real suicide terrorists did it. May I remind you, the four hijacked airliners had to gain clearance to take off in the first place from civilian air traffic controllers. Every airliner to depart an airport has at least five minutes separation because of wake vortexes which can be hazardous. Those planes needed clearance to take off and were directed into air traffic corridors with transponders squawking their exact locations. Air traffic controllers were talking to the pilots up until the moment of hijacking. Air traffic controllers would have to be in on it if they're lying. The Betty Ong call would have had to have been faked. Passenger calls would have to have been faked. Loved ones would have had to be in on it.
There's too many loose ends for it to work as an inside job, whereas a truck bomb in times square would have been easy and would have yielded the same end result of war.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 14, 2013 8:24:18 GMT -5
"You are a conspiracy theorist, just like I used to be."
Sorry, I'm not you, was never you and never will be you or anything like you.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 14, 2013 8:25:55 GMT -5
No you're not me, but you are like how I used to be.
Now stop trying to change the subject, quit ducking and diving and answer the questions.
If inside job what was the motive and why target the Twin Towers and the Pentagon ?
Why bother with Airliners ?
Why not something simpler like a truck bomb ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 14, 2013 9:22:07 GMT -5
No you're not me, but you are like how I used to be. Now stop trying to change the subject, quit ducking and diving and answer the questions. If inside job what was the motive and why target the Twin Towers and the Pentagon ? Why bother with Airliners ? Why not something simpler like a truck bomb ? Like I said, good questions. So why do never ask any good questions or any questions for that matter, when it comes to the official government conspiracy theory? That's rhetorical, you would never answer that question anyway. Besides, I already know the answer. As to your questions, you might get answers if and when we ever get a REAL investigation into 9/11 done. I'm not the one who can provide answers to your questions, I had nothing to do with 9/11. You're not really interested in answers to your questions anyway, it's just one of your straw man tactics used to try to support the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 14, 2013 9:33:22 GMT -5
I know they're good questions, but simple ones. Don't you have an answer ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 14, 2013 9:41:07 GMT -5
I know they're good questions, but simple ones. Don't you have an answer ? What part did you not understand about "I'm not the one who can provide answers to your questions, I had nothing to do with 9/11"?
|
|
|
Post by richardcavessa on Oct 14, 2013 12:35:17 GMT -5
not 1 plane part as evidence it went down like shred sez....
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 14, 2013 14:15:16 GMT -5
I know they're good questions, but simple ones. Don't you have an answer ? What part did you not understand about "I'm not the one who can provide answers to your questions, I had nothing to do with 9/11"? You're the one making it out to have been an inside job. Answer the questions, they're quite logical, you'll realise it can't have been. Start with the airport, passengers (and terrorists board) American Airlines Flight 11 a scheduled daily flight, with planned route, it's takeoff had to be approved by air traffic controllers, they were talking to the pilot and co pilot of that plane by radio from the moment they requested permission for taxying to the active runway. Think about how it ended up in the North Tower of the World Trade Centre. Did it fly itself Bob? If so, American Airlines would have had to have been in on it, wouldn't they ? And why would they participate in an atrocity that nearly bankrupted them ? No the hijackers killed the pilots so the hijacking could not be reversed they flew the plane and crashed it. How many people were in on the conspiracy ? 19 hijackers including four trained licence holding pilots, or squads of people to rig three towers for demolition, squads of people to modify airliners so controls could be overridden, squads of actors to falsify phone calls ? How many people, do you reckon it would take to rig three fully working office buildings with a combined 267 stories in all (110+110+47) for controlled demolition ? How could such highly invasive work be done without office staff noticing ? How could high explosives withstand a plane crash, or indeed the impact of tonnes of debris from another building's collapse ? The inside job theory is quite implausible as these questions show. The hijacking explanation is simple and ticks all the boxes.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 14, 2013 14:44:07 GMT -5
"You're the one making it out to have been an inside job."
I'm not "making out" anything other than what it is. And I don't know what it is because there was never an INVESTIGATION into 9/11. All we got was some impossible theory and 3 politically motivated frauds pretending to be investigations but obviously designed to cover up the massive crime that 9/11 was. Whether you want to call it an "inside job" or not is your label. To me, just the DELIBERATE STAND DOWN, DELIBERATE DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE and the 3 fraudulent "investigations", along with much, much more EVIDENCE is clear complicity in the murder of over 3,000 innocent people.
"Answer the questions"
Do you understand English or do you need a translator (or a dictionary if you can't afford one)? And here I thought they speak English in your country. I clearly made my point more than once. Why do you need me to answer questions you claim you already have all the answers to?
"The hijacking explanation is simple and ticks all the boxes."
Everything is "simple" when you don't question anything and just tick boxes. All 3 fake investigations came out with simple reports that any fool can swallow without questioning. One even came out with a comic book version for the most simple of simpletons. Another came up with a report that contradicted the first "investigation", then came out with yet another one that contradicted itself.
Don't ask any questions, just keep "ticking" the boxes if it works for you. That's all you ever do anyway. I don't tick boxes, I ask questions, lots of them.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 15, 2013 8:54:56 GMT -5
It wasn't an inside job. Investigations by MIT, Manchester University, Northwestern University, Cambridge University, Corus (now Tata Steel) the University of Sydney, The Steel in Fire Forum, the BBC, Popular Mechanics, Implosionworld, FEMA and NIST all agree that the structural damage caused by the planes and the burning contents of the buildings ignited by burning jet fuel weakened the steelwork of the building to a point at which it could no longer bear load in the impact floors and that the floors above fell as a result. The aviation issues were investigated by NORAD, FAA, NTSB, MIT, BBC, Popular Mechanics. Now why would any government go to such absurd lengths to fake such a thing when a truck bomb would yield the same outrage and would be easier to get away with? After all the 1996 Arndale Centre truck bomber still hasn't been caught after 17 years despite CCTV and despite the attack wrecking Manchester City Centre. The Republicans couldn't even pull off a robbery in the Watergate building, there's no way three WTC buildings could be rigged for demolition, it's hugely invasive work. People would have noticed and even if somehow miraculously nobody had noticed the large teams of people taking their walls down to get at the steelwork, the charges wouldn't have survived the plane crashes. Why is it you cannot question the conspiracy theories which suggest the towers were rigged ? There is no evidence that they were.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 15, 2013 9:59:28 GMT -5
"It wasn't an inside job."
True, the job was done outside.
"Investigations by MIT, Manchester University, Northwestern University, Cambridge University, Corus (now Tata Steel) the University of Sydney, The Steel in Fire Forum, the BBC, Popular Mechanics, Implosionworld, FEMA and NIST all agree that the structural damage caused by the planes and the burning contents of the buildings ignited by burning jet fuel weakened the steelwork of the building to a point at which it could no longer bear load in the impact floors and that the floors above fell as a result."
NIST, BBC, FEMA & Popular Mechanics, eh? You forgot National Geographic, the History Channel, just about all the MSM, all of the US government and millions of people. So the jet fuel must have splashed into WTC7 then? And they all agree because NIST said so? It must have been those convincing computer simulation cartoons, anyone would agree to anything after watching those. And according to NIST, the steel in WTC1 & WTC2 "sagged" tremendously (42 inches they said) from all the heat that wasn't hot enough to make it sag but in WTC7, the same heat caused the steel to remain rigid but expand. They called it a NEW PHENOMENON, "thermal expansion". Before NIST, no one ever heard of thermal expansion, NIST first discovered it. It takes a genius from MIT to understand how steel works when heated, in one building it sags, but in another building it remains rigid and expands. I take it the heat also makes stiffener plates and shear studs disappear from the original drawings? That must be a new phenomenon too. Architects should be careful when they design buildings because if there's any heat, stiffener plates and shear studs are going to disappear from their blueprints. I suggest they start using permanent markers in their drawings.
"The aviation issues were investigated by NORAD, FAA, NTSB, MIT, BBC, Popular Mechanics."
Oh good, I feel so much better now that all the alphabet agencies that didn't do squat on 9/11 investigated themselves. And especially the geniuses at MIT who agree with NIST and most importantly, BBC & Popular Mechanics. I'll bet they all figured out they couldn't do anything on 9/11 but watch the news on TV and that it wasn't an inside job. Am I right?
"Why is it you cannot question the conspiracy theories which suggest the towers were rigged ?"
I don't know, let me check the NIST cartoons again, maybe they explain everything.
"There is no evidence that they were."
Well then, it must be true because you said so. And who would question an illustrious character such as yourself who knows everything, was inside all 4 planes on 9/11 and inside all 3 towers? And let's not forget, also knows what everyone thinks and anticipates what they will think in the future.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 15, 2013 11:51:19 GMT -5
Back to the topic at hand, the issue of motive. Who had the motive to attack the USA with hijacked airliners on 11th Sept 2001 ? Al Qaeda.
Who hijacked the airliners on 11th Sept 2001 ? Al Qaeda.
Why did they hijack airliners and fly them into buildings ?
Al Qaeda hate the USA because the USA is the largest sponsor of Israel. USA occupied military bases in Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries. USA's sanctions against Iraq had drastically raised the infant mortality rate in Iraq. USA is the home of powered flight, the Twin Towers the ultimate symbol of America's economic power. The Pentagon the ultimate symbol of the American Military.
Why would the US Government fake something like this ? They wouldn't because they couldn't even hope to get away with faking something like this. If they had a motive to attack and kill thousands of Americans they'd have done the simplest thing, not the most complicated thing with the most chance of going wrong.
The twin towers fell because planes hit them and set fire to them and weakened them, not because of thermitic incendiary materials or explosives.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 15, 2013 12:29:45 GMT -5
"Back to the topic at hand"
Of course, why question any of these OBVIOUS DOCUMENTED contradictions in the official narrative? Let's just ignore them as if they don't exist and pretend no one noticed and instead speculate (as in "conspiracy theory").
"Who had the motive to attack the USA with hijacked airliners on 11th Sept 2001 ? Al Qaeda.
Who hijacked the airliners on 11th Sept 2001 ? Al Qaeda.
Why did they hijack airliners and fly them into buildings ?
Al Qaeda hate the USA because the USA is the largest sponsor of Israel. USA occupied military bases in Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries. USA's sanctions against Iraq had drastically raised the infant mortality rate in Iraq. USA is the home of powered flight, the Twin Towers the ultimate symbol of America's economic power. The Pentagon the ultimate symbol of the American Military.
Why would the US Government fake something like this ? They wouldn't because they couldn't even hope to get away with faking something like this. If they had a motive to attack and kill thousands of Americans they'd have done the simplest thing, not the most complicated thing with the most chance of going wrong.
The twin towers fell because planes hit them and set fire to them and weakened them, not because of thermitic incendiary materials or explosives."
Well there ya go, that settles it. You answered ALL the questions, no need to ask for anything more. You should explain all that to all those nasty "non-experts" at AE911, the eyewitnesses and all those idiots who lost loved ones on 9/11 who still ask a million questions and doggone it, they just can't accept that conspiracy theory. This guy hates them too:
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 15, 2013 14:09:51 GMT -5
WHAT CONTRADICTIONS ?
Were airliners not hijacked ? Were the twin towers NOT hit by airliners ? Were they not structurally damaged and on fire after being hit? Were the airliners not flying far faster than the landing speed of a Boeing 707 ? Did passengers on the planes not call their loved ones and talk about the situation on board ? Did the FAA not contact NORAD and inform them about the hijacked aircraft's deviations away from the prepared flight plan after several failed attempts to contact the planes ?
What motive would the US Government have to fake such an attack ? And how could such an attack be faked ?
It's too difficult to rig three fully working offices, even if it wasn't too difficult, the explosives wouldn't survive the plane crashes and so the collapses would have been instantaneous.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 15, 2013 14:33:03 GMT -5
"WHAT CONTRADICTIONS ?"
For you? None. For those who know how to read and understand English, I posted just a few contradictions in the post you ignored and instead wanted to go back to the topic at hand. But don't worry about those pesky contradictions, they're meaningless to you anyway. Just assume I didn't post them.
As for all your other questions, you have all the answers so why are you asking me?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 15, 2013 16:01:07 GMT -5
You didn't post any contradictions, you posted a cornucopia of misquotations, doctored videos, lies and half truths. I debunked you, you carried on ignoring the facts and carried on posting misquotations doctored videos lies and half truths.
You are unable to answer simple questions that point YOU to the truth: Why would the US Government do such a thing ? Why if they could rig passenger jets to crash into the twin towers would they take an extra risk of rigging the twin towers and also WTC7 for controlled demolitions ? How could demolitions charges survive the plane crashes without detonating ?
Why would the US Government choose this method to stage a terrorist attack when it'd be simpler just to put out a story of a plane being brought down by a bomb mid flight ? Come on Bob, think about it, there's no logical reason for 9/11 to be an inside job, is there ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 15, 2013 19:03:18 GMT -5
"You didn't post any contradictions"
That's what I said, for you there are no contradictions. Are you trying to make sure or just being redundant?
"you posted a cornucopia of misquotations, doctored videos, lies and half truths."
Yep, for you absolutely, that's what it was. It's not true that NIST said when heated, steel reacts one way in WTC1 & WTC2 and a completely different way in WTC7. I personally doctored the NIST reports. It's also not true that NIST published drawings that were missing the stiffener plates and that NIST claimed there were shear studs in their first report but changed their minds and claimed there were none in their final report. I doctored all of that or lied, pick one, maybe both. And the videos of the computer simulation cartoons? Yeah that was me too, I'm good at doctoring those as well. So please don't turn me in to the police, ok? Thanks.
"I debunked you"
I know, you're so good at that.
"you carried on ignoring the facts and carried on posting misquotations doctored videos lies and half truths."
Oh my, how many years in jail will I get? This is getting scary.
"You are unable to answer simple questions that point YOU to the truth"
Jeeez, you think maybe I need professional help?
"Come on Bob, think about it"
I can't think, it's too difficult, will you help me? Thanks.
"there's no logical reason for 9/11 to be an inside job, is there ?"
Didn't I tell you it was an outside job? I mean, how do you fly a plane inside? Don't be silly.
See, we can agree after all. That's if I go down to your level of immaturity.
You're such a child. Your posts get more and more senseless all the time, you really ought to try to bring some adult mentality to the discussion but I don't think you can. It's gotten to the point where you're overwhelmed by the amount of information and EVIDENCE that clearly shows the incredible level of criminal fraud these government hired lackeys resorted to and you have no real answers, just the same tired old routine.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 16, 2013 3:01:27 GMT -5
Oh look who is changing the subject and resorting to personal attacks because he's got no answers!
You call me childish ? Look in the mirror Bob.
And answer the questions:
Why would the US Government kill almost 3000 Americans in a faked terrorist attack ? If they had motive, why would the US Government go to such complicated lengths to fake such a terrorist attack ? Why would NORAD stand down ? Fighter pilots who were up hunting for the hijacked planes and Norman Mineta say there wasn't a stand down. And why would the US Government complicate things further with building seven ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 16, 2013 8:40:59 GMT -5
"look who is changing the subject"
Oh yeah that's right, the topic is "9/11 the question of motive". Ok, I'll bite since you don't want to address anything I posted. What motivated the entire US government and intelligence/defense system to stand down on 9/11? What motivated government to destroy evidence as quickly as possible immediately after 9/11? What motivated government to declare that the air was safe around Ground Zero when it was not? What motivated Bush to fail to immediately start an investigation into 9/11 and then cave in years later only after immense pressure by those who lost loved ones on 9/11? What motivated the 9/11 Commission to suppress Mineta's and many other testimonies (including the many accounts of explosions - i.e. Willie Rodriguez) in their report? What motivated the 9/11 Commission to fail to investigate or even mention WTC7 in their report? What motivated NIST to fail to investigate the collapse of WTC7 until many years after 9/11? What motivated NIST to fail to use standard NFPA protocol in their "investigation" (including failure to take into account the many eyewitness testimonies of explosions and failure to investigate for explosives)? What motivated NIST to commit fraud in order to try to make their column 79 theory work (see deliberately omitting stiffener plates and shear studs, among many other things)? What motivated NIST to publish one theory for how steel reacted under heat in WTC1 & WTC2 then publish a completely different one for WTC7?
etc., etc.
I have tons of questions on motives myself. But all I can do is speculate as to what the answers are. The difference is that my questions are based on historical fact. Your questions are based on a conspiracy theory.
Oh BTW, no need for you to try to answer any of my questions, obviously you don't know the answer. These are all questions you would never ask though, that's also obvious.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 17, 2013 6:32:07 GMT -5
1) There was no stand down on 9/11 as Pilots who were scrambled and Norman Mineta agree. 2) Evidence was not destroyed, a site was cleared because concrete dust, gypsum dust, smoke and other toxins were in the air, a lot of steelwork from the site was taken for study. The evidence is that planes hit the towers and weakened them, it's on video. It's recorded historical fact. 3) Dunno, Wall Street pressure perhaps ? 4) Evidence ? 5) Mineta's testimony isn't surpressed it's on youtube, he didn't testify to there being a stand down, Rodriguez however is an unreliable witness whose testimony has continuously changed. 6) The 9/11 commission report was an investigation into the terrorist attack, not an engineering study. WTC7 wasn't a target of Al Qaeda's terrorist attack, it fell down because it was badly damaged by WTC1 and caught fire. 7) NIST's investigation into the collapse of WTC7 was incredibly thorough. They required an extremely complicated mathematical model of the building the fire inside and the damage to the building inflicted by WTC1. 8) There were no explosive chargess to investigate. What motivates you to lie about explosives, Norman Mineta, WTC7 and NIST ? Back to Rodriguez, an explosion in a basement will not cause a top down collapse and clearly he ws too far down to hear the impact of the airliner, also the explosion he claims to have heard was long before the collapses began. So, what if anything could have exploded in the basement that Rodriguez would have heard? Answer: Burning fuel from the planes which had spilled down lift shafts. Lauren Manning was burned by jet fuel in the lobby. usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/books/news/story/2011-08-29/Survivor-Lauren-Manning-finds-new-normal-after-911/50182388/1The original testimony of Rodriguez sites.google.com/site/911stories/rodriguezstatementtonistThat wasn't a slip. On September 11, 2002, Rodriguez was interviewed by CNN: transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.48.htmlHis supervisor who was with him said "Being inside, we didn't know that there was anything wrong from the upper levels." sites.google.com/site/911stories/homeArturo Griffith was in a lift car and survived with broken ankles. But he said: web.archive.org/web/20021101235538/http://911digitalarchive.org/seiu/details/54SO again there's no evidence that the buildings were pre rigged for demolitions. There is evidence of structural damage and burning fuel and flammable building contents. There's no evidence that the US government had motive to kill nearly 3000 people including Pentagon staff, there is evidence that Al Qaeda did have the motive (and Al Qaeda admitted responsibility for the attack).
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 17, 2013 6:53:18 GMT -5
Like I said "obviously you don't know the answer", just your biased theories and opinions. But you sure pretend you have the answer to everything and there's not one single question one needs to ask because, in your make believe world, you can answer them all with 100% certainty. In my real world though, you're still a nobody in a mostly anonymous message forum who has some kind of agenda to support the 9/11 narrative like a rabid dog.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 17, 2013 6:55:29 GMT -5
Read it again, just incase you have a problem with ENGLISH.
I've just updated and added more facts.
|
|