Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Debt


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 20th, 2012, 09:19 PM   #61
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 56,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Nothing is obvious and anyone that says it is is probably trying to mislead you or me.


A great summation of the "all questions are sufficiently answered" official version.
imaginethat is online now  
Old June 20th, 2012, 09:28 PM   #62
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
No to wasn't. It was a statement about how nothing is trustworthy about anything on 9/11, nor is anything obvious about it.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 20th, 2012, 10:47 PM   #63
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 56,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
No to wasn't. It was a statement about how nothing is trustworthy about anything on 9/11, nor is anything obvious about it.


It's pretty damned obvious how WTC 7 came down exactly like a controlled demolition, and denying that is simple denial.



And it's obvious that WTCs 1 and 2 suffered asymmetrical damage, and yet collapsed symmetrically.



It's obvious that the 911 investigation was delayed and underfunded.



It's obvious that Bush and Cheney had to testify together, and not under oath.



It's obvious that every professional organization of pilots and engineers refuted the official explanation.



Is this enough, or would you like some more?
imaginethat is online now  
Old June 21st, 2012, 04:14 AM   #64
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist' timestamp='1340242492' post='408579

Gary, no, it would take several weeks to do that. And the demolition has to be designed and installed precisely as to the demolition design. Every building is different. It takes an expert to do this kind of work. Furthermore, there are at least 20 separate explosions on different floors evident in that video.



And now here is the kicker. According to Larry Silver Stein, the leaseholders of the ETC, the voice you hear in the video, the fire department 'pulled' the building. That means that it was imploded. But in 2007, the official federal MIST report indicates that the building came down on its own, due to fire. How do we explain that the owners of the place admits it was demolished by explosives, but years later the Bush Administration disagrees?


It's the NIST report, RC, and it was a complete joke. I read it. It's totally nonsensical. The mechanism proposed for the collapse, the expansion of horizontal trusses, combined with its explanation of how the fires burned, essentially burning themselves out before being able to provide the heat necessary to "expand" the trusses, is a bad fairy tale.



Of course, Popular Mechanics, which undoubtedly was paid well for its role as primary debunker, cheered the NIST report saying it put "conspiracy theories" to rest, which it did not do.



The collapse of WTC 7 was a classic implosion, with the classic "kink" in the top of the building showing that the innermost support was taken out so that the building would collapse inward on itself.



WTC 7 was not the ONLY thing about the events of 911 that did not add up, The Pentagon hit was all but impossible according to every professional pilots' association that examined the flight plan and took into account the laws of physics. Several professional engineering groups went on record as saying the collapse of the twin towers made no sense. For goodness' sake, both fell at nearly free-fall speed, defying the laws of physics! The ground scar in Shanksville, PA existed BEFORE the alleged crash, and the debris field was scattered over miles indicating the plane blew up in the air. Bush delayed beginning the 911 investigation, and radically under-funded it.



But one task was pulled off well. Somehow, most people were convinced that any questioning the full-of-holes official story is a conspiracy theorist. That hypnotic feat was pulled off well.


Again, using my phone which keep autocorrecting.. Thanks for the corrections. I meant, WTC, not ETC, and NIST, not MIST.



ANd Gary, here are the last two videos in the series:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYR9Xvo3Ofw



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYR9Xvo3Ofw
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Old June 21st, 2012, 05:41 AM   #65
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1340252939' post='408642

No to wasn't. It was a statement about how nothing is trustworthy about anything on 9/11, nor is anything obvious about it.


It's pretty damned obvious how WTC 7 came down exactly like a controlled demolition, and denying that is simple denial.



And it's obvious that WTCs 1 and 2 suffered asymmetrical damage, and yet collapsed symmetrically.



It's obvious that the 911 investigation was delayed and underfunded.



It's obvious that Bush and Cheney had to testify together, and not under oath.



It's obvious that every professional organization of pilots and engineers refuted the official explanation.



Is this enough, or would you like some more?


None of what you say is concrete proof of anything except for your own doubts. And I have my own. I suggest you check your snark at the door when trying to convince someone of your position. It really isn't helping you here. Nothing is obvious, and if you think it is, it probably isn't.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 21st, 2012, 06:34 AM   #66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
OK, Gary, and others. If you have reviewed the videos, then you know:



(1) WTC 7 "freefalled," meaning that all of the columns collapsed simultaneously, offering no resistance against the forces of gravity, allowing the entire building to implode into a heap, with no other explantion than it was a design demolition



(2) We hear the testimony of Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the WTC complex, who in a PBS documentary in 2002, admits that the building was purposely demolished at 5:20 PM on the day of 911.



(3) We see video evidence of preset charges all up and own at approximately 1/3 points right to left, blowing out windows and offering sight evidence of the actual charge explosions, confirming the 2002 testimony of Mr. Silverstein. CONCLUSION-the building was brought down on purpose and the charges had been placed with premeditation prior to 911.



(4) Five years after Mr. Silverstein admits on national TV that he authorized the building to be destroyed the afternoon of 911, the official federal government NIST report contradicts Mr. Silverstein's admission, speaking not of Mr. Silverstein at all, and offers an erroneous conclusion that the building did not implode, dropping at the speed that a gravity freefall must have called for.



(5) After having its error called to its attention in public, NIST changes its report, which subsequently allows for a gravity freefall, and offers a computer animation, but with no details of the assumptions or calculations that the animation depends upon, and falsifies the time it took for the building to freefall, and generates an unsupported conclusion that somehow a freefall could be accounted for, while NIST holds fast to the theory that assymetric fires, that could in no way burn as hot as required to melt or even harm the steel in the building, explain how all of the support columns lost all of their properties of support at once, having each sheered off at the steep angle offered by IT's photo.



No realize that this NIST report did not even come out until 2007, and had very little press attention. Also, look at how the Bush administration had attempted to actively worked to deny the 911 commission access to the information and the people it needed in order to attempt to come to a legitimate conclusion:



http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...04/b44775.html



It is obvious that in the very least, there is a fish in the frying pan here.



Why did the Bush justice department never ask Mr. Silverstein the first question concerning his admission that he authorized the building to be brought down?



Why have none of these questions ever been answered?



Why did the Bush administration invoke executive priviledge from testifying, or having its cabinet members testify?



Obviously, there are reasons for all of these questions. But as long as we stay in the dark, not questioning, and the more time that passes, all this goes away. Just like the JFK assassination, it all goes away.



Somebody is up to something here. Is there no one except IT who will acknowledge that?
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Old June 21st, 2012, 07:11 AM   #67
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
When is the government not up to something that they aren't telling us about? When has it ever been different? Nothing is going to change the past or change the future of government protecting it's ass and calling it national security.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 21st, 2012, 07:57 AM   #68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
When is the government not up to something that they aren't telling us about? When has it ever been different? Nothing is going to change the past or change the future of government protecting it's ass and calling it national security.


With respect, I believe it goes deeper than that. To me, protecting one's ass is an effort to hide a mistake. But this could not have been a mistake. The hard evidence is that, at least at this point of the discussion, WTC 7 was rigged in advance to come down. That could not have been by mistake, unless of course they rigged the wrong building. I suppose that could have been a mistake. But knowing that it was a premeditated act to rig the buildingin advance of 911, and knowing that any half way conscientious investigation would have figured that out pretty fast, then unless the Bush Administration was trying to hide its own prior knowledge of the fact of WTC 7's rigging, and also its prior knowledge of 911, then why else would they not have noticed this obvious fact? Why would the president invoke executive priviledge from members of his cabinet testifying? Why would the president's justice department not question Larry Silverstein about what he knew and when he knew it? Why would the NIST commission make such obvious errors and omissions as they did, and arrive at a conclusion that the facts cannot justify and that defies the oral testimony of Mr. Silverstein, uttered 5 years prior, under no duress, and shown to a national audience on PBS?



No, I cannot see that any of this is folks simply trying to cover up a mistake. Can you? How about you Gary?
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Old June 21st, 2012, 08:14 AM   #69
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
The agenda of a segment of the government or our national security apparatus and it not informing citizens of it's secrets, is not covering for a mistakes. That isn't what I meant.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 21st, 2012, 08:25 AM   #70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
The agenda of a segment of the government or our national security apparatus and it not informing citizens of it's secrets, is not covering for a mistakes. That isn't what I meant.


And what could that agenda possibly be, that executing it would prevent the entire executive branch of the American government under the Bush administration from admitting prior knowledge of 911, and knowledge of WTC 7's deliberate demolition, with its steel, rather than being made available for forensic examination, being sent on a boat to be melted and recycled in China?



And incidentally, among the tenants of WTC 7 was the US Secret Service, (SS) which answers directly to the president of the United States, and whose offices were housed on floors 9 & 10.
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Debt

Tags
bears, couple, easing, explained, humorously, quantitative



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poll shows raw feelings easing over health law msnbc.com Current Events 2 January 17th, 2011 06:43 PM
House to vote on bill easing stem cell restrictions CNN Current Events 1 June 7th, 2007 09:12 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.