Political Crossfire Forums

[William Amos]

homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

What truth? You haven't presented anything to dispute the controlled demolition theory, which is 100% supported by factual evidence.

The buildings collapses are consistent with a controlled demolition, the PNAC cabal had prior motive, the connections required to get into the building to set it up, and the influence over NORAD to initiate a virtual stand down of our national air defense in order to stage the planes hitting the towers without the standard protocol of intervention.

I dont have to dispove what didnt happen. you have to prove it did

Nice ploy but I can show the planes flying into the building. Have any pictures of them setting up the explosives ?

[Otacon]

William Amos wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

What truth? You haven't presented anything to dispute the controlled demolition theory, which is 100% supported by factual evidence.

The buildings collapses are consistent with a controlled demolition, the PNAC cabal had prior motive, the connections required to get into the building to set it up, and the influence over NORAD to initiate a virtual stand down of our national air defense in order to stage the planes hitting the towers without the standard protocol of intervention.

I dont have to dispove what didnt happen. you have to prove it did

Nice ploy but I can show the planes flying into the building. Have any pictures of them setting up the explosives ?

No, he doesn't, but he'll just make some obscure point to try and justify his wrong position.

[Patriot911]

There is zero proof of any kind of a stand down by NORAD. If the FAA had reported the planes to NORAD sooner, more could have been done. As it was, NORAD was not given enough time to deal with the situation.

[Gdawg007]

Claudia Schiffer wrote: Patriot911 wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Reverend_HellH0und wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: flamboyant wrote: I wonder if the conspiracy loons ever get an inkling of just how delusional their claims are and how much they're the laughing stock of the forum?

You guys are the laughing stock of the whole world. :roll: Weak up!

How did WT7 collapse????

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9184329400593634920&q=label%3Azionism

Wait! thsi guy knows how that happened. :wink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ&mode=related&search=

Try asking someone who was there. It is obvious to us.

Okay, assuming you were there, how exactly did Building 7 collapse?

Along that line of questioning, do you not also find it coincidental that the guy that owned building 7 had just signed a new 99 year lease on the towers and took out an insurance policy that paid him billions after the towers collapsed?

Maybe you should do some of that "research" stuff. Silverstein hasn't made billions or even millions. In fact he is PAYING millions a month just to keep his rights to the lease. The insurance money? It goes into the new WTC. See, thats the thing about insurance money on leased property. It goes into rebuilding the property, not into the leasee's pocket. Think the title holder of your leased car would like it if you wrecked the car and took all the insurance money for yourself? :lol:

homerjay_s wrote: How about the fact the Marvin Bush, son of former president George HW Bush and brother of current president George W Bush, was a principle in the security company that handled security for both the towers and building 7?
Marvin was on the board, not a principal. He was also only on the committee for auditing and compensation. He had nothing to do with security. Also, Securacom did not have the security contracts for the WTC on 9/11. ALSO, Marvin Bush was no longer associated with Securatec as of 2000.
homerjay_s wrote: Then there's the dubious lack of evidence to support the theory of a plane even hitting the pentagon. There was no plane debris at the site. The flight path to hit the building where they did would have required a highly advanced high degree turn that is highly doubtful that an inexperience pilot such as Hani Hanjour would have been able to make, particularly since the instructor where he practiced some flight training said that he had trouble handling a Cesna. Oh right, then there was the FBI confiscating surveillance video within minutes of the attack from private businesses that had shots of the impact, as of yet still un released in full.

So many misconceptions in such a short paragraph. How about the hundreds of witnesses that saw a jet airliner pass directly overhead moments before it struck? How about the tons of pictures of plane debris even though you claim there was none? The flight path was remarked on by Air Traffic Controllers because (and this is the part that is left out of the quote) "it is unsafe to fly a 757 that way". They say nothing of the skill involved.

Tell me. If you saw the videos that the FBI confiscated, wouldn't you be dubious of those as well? The FBI released the second surveilance tape and true to form not a single CT even BLINKED before denouncing it as fake or inconclusive.

homerjay_s wrote: Not to mention the fact that it is physically impossible for buildings to completely desintegrate to the point of a free fall collapse upon their own footpring simply by being hit by a plane, or in building 7's case, not being hit by anything at all.

Wow. Did you even watch the collapses? Read any of the testimony from the firemen who were there? Read the reports?

First, the buildings did not "completely disintigrate". Don't know where you got that one. I seem to recall seeing HUGE piles of rubble that had to be removed.

Second, there was no freefall collapse. You can clearly see that from the videos where you see literally hundreds of tons of material being pushed over the side of WTC 1 and 2 as they collapsed. If the buildings fell at freefall speed they would have indeed fell within their footprint which they obviously did NOT do.

"Simply being hit by a plane". :rofl: First, you ignore the fires. Second, the towers were hit by a nearly 300 TON airliner at speeds close to 500 miles per hour. Tell me.... was the plane simply suppose to bounce off the building and cause no damage? How much damage do you think a 300 ton object going 500 miles an hour does? :roll:

And as for your statements that WTC 7 wasn't hit by anything, go read the firefighter testimony. They talk about a 20 story high hole going across the middle third of the south face. They talk about structural damage so bad that you could visibly see the building leaning and a 3 story bulge one one corner.

Remember your little statement about WTC 1 and 2 falling in their own footprint? Well, they didn't. They damaged numerous buildings including several that were damaged so bad that they had to be demolished afterwards.

Special agent pPtriot to the rescue! :lol: :lol: Din't i tell you guys? :lol: He patriot what took you so long? :rotf: :rotf:

Was this just pointless trolling?

WTC 1 and 2 did not fall neatly into their footprints, they fell in a pile of rubble that filled most of the WTC complex. As they fell, they shed large pieces on WTC 7.

[homerjay_s]

Patriot911 wrote: There is zero proof of any kind of a stand down by NORAD. If the FAA had reported the planes to NORAD sooner, more could have been done. As it was, NORAD was not given enough time to deal with the situation.

That's bull s**t.

http://standdown.net/

[Otacon]

homerjay_s wrote: Patriot911 wrote: There is zero proof of any kind of a stand down by NORAD. If the FAA had reported the planes to NORAD sooner, more could have been done. As it was, NORAD was not given enough time to deal with the situation.

That's bull s**t.

http://standdown.net/

Stop posting sites that are all about the conspiracy. That's not proof.

[Patriot911]

Standdown.net isn't proof. Did you even bother to read it? It is full of speculation and sounds like it was written long before the 911 commission report came out. I got to the point where they "prove" they weren't Islamic hijackers because they didn't go after the nuclear plant at Indian Point. :lol:

So how about the tape that shows Osama working with the hijackers prior to 9/11? ;-)

[homerjay_s]

Otacon wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Patriot911 wrote: There is zero proof of any kind of a stand down by NORAD. If the FAA had reported the planes to NORAD sooner, more could have been done. As it was, NORAD was not given enough time to deal with the situation.

That's bull s**t.

http://standdown.net/

Stop posting sites that are all about the conspiracy. That's not proof.

This site documents the minute by minute interaction between the time Air traffic control lost coms with the first plane until the last plane allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania.

It also documents the official FAA procedure for handling of hijack situations.

The proof is that the procedures were not followed.

Where is the proof that the FAA didn't report the hijacking in time for NORAD to respond.

[homerjay_s]

Otacon wrote: William Amos wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

What truth? You haven't presented anything to dispute the controlled demolition theory, which is 100% supported by factual evidence.

The buildings collapses are consistent with a controlled demolition, the PNAC cabal had prior motive, the connections required to get into the building to set it up, and the influence over NORAD to initiate a virtual stand down of our national air defense in order to stage the planes hitting the towers without the standard protocol of intervention.

I dont have to dispove what didnt happen. you have to prove it did

Nice ploy but I can show the planes flying into the building. Have any pictures of them setting up the explosives ?

No, he doesn't, but he'll just make some obscure point to try and justify his wrong position.

I have to prove what? That the building collapsed without being hit by a plane? What caused it to collapse? More importantly, how did the impact of two planes cause the three buildings to disintegrate to the point of free fall collapsing onto their own footprint?

[Claudia Schiffer]

I see this thread has been conveniently moved in the ''hide the truth section of the forum''...must be a good sign i guess...

[NAB]

Claudia Schiffer wrote: I see this thread has been conveniently moved in the ''hide the truth section of the forum''...must be a good sign i guess...

Think your participation might have something to do with it counter-Agent Schiffer? :wink:

[homerjay_s]

William Amos wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

What truth? You haven't presented anything to dispute the controlled demolition theory, which is 100% supported by factual evidence.

The buildings collapses are consistent with a controlled demolition, the PNAC cabal had prior motive, the connections required to get into the building to set it up, and the influence over NORAD to initiate a virtual stand down of our national air defense in order to stage the planes hitting the towers without the standard protocol of intervention.

I dont have to dispove what didnt happen. you have to prove it did

Nice ploy but I can show the planes flying into the building. Have any pictures of them setting up the explosives ?

There's lots of video of the controlled demolition explosions in this documentary...you'd actually have to watch it though, not just post that the link is biased in favor of proving the conspiracy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Did you also know that the towers were built to withstand a direct hit from a plane?

[Patriot911]

OK, here is some right from a quick google search

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/

8:38 a.m. FAA notifies NORAD of flight 11. 8:44 NORAD orders fighters scrambled. By 8:52 they take off. Yeah, that sure sounds like a stand down order. :roll: Sorry you expect instant action, but in the real world that doesn't happen.

12 minutes between the warning from the FAA to NORAD that a plane was heading for Washington. 12 minutes isn't enough time to get an armed fighter jet in the air and within range.

[homerjay_s]

Patriot911 wrote: OK, here is some right from a quick google search

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/

8:38 a.m. FAA notifies NORAD of flight 11. 8:44 NORAD orders fighters scrambled. By 8:52 they take off. Yeah, that sure sounds like a stand down order. :roll: Sorry you expect instant action, but in the real world that doesn't happen.

12 minutes between the warning from the FAA to NORAD that a plane was heading for Washington. 12 minutes isn't enough time to get an armed fighter jet in the air and within range.

But the Pentagon wasn't hit until 9:38, more than 40 minutes later...I sure hope it doesn't take NORAD more than 40 minutes to neutralize a threat to our capital. Your position states that it does.

Next?

[NAB]

homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

What truth? You haven't presented anything to dispute the controlled demolition theory, which is 100% supported by factual evidence.

The buildings collapses are consistent with a controlled demolition, the PNAC cabal had prior motive, the connections required to get into the building to set it up, and the influence over NORAD to initiate a virtual stand down of our national air defense in order to stage the planes hitting the towers without the standard protocol of intervention.

I dont have to dispove what didnt happen. you have to prove it did

Nice ploy but I can show the planes flying into the building. Have any pictures of them setting up the explosives ?

There's lots of video of the controlled demolition explosions in this documentary...you'd actually have to watch it though, not just post that the link is biased in favor of proving the conspiracy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Did you also know that the towers were built to withstand a direct hit from a plane?

Yes, they were designed take the impact of a 707 traveling a low speeds. This doesn't mean they would "withstand" the impact. Buildings cannot be designed to completely withstand a catastrophic event like an aircraft hitting them, that's impossible. They are designed in a way to try and hold up long enough to get the inhabitants out safely. For example, if you look a term like 2-hour wall in relation to fire rating you will understand it's meant to safely keep the fire from penetrating it for 2 hours. There is no material that has an Infinity-Rating. The fire rating system is all about getting people out safely, not necessarily make a building immune to fire.

Also, at risk of continually repeating a link (which is one reason why I mentioned looking around the forum to see the responses), here's a recent link done by a demolition expert. I seriously hate having to re-post this, but this 911 topic constantly seems to start from complete scratch everytime.
Demo expert report in PDF format

[homerjay_s]

NAB wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

What truth? You haven't presented anything to dispute the controlled demolition theory, which is 100% supported by factual evidence.

The buildings collapses are consistent with a controlled demolition, the PNAC cabal had prior motive, the connections required to get into the building to set it up, and the influence over NORAD to initiate a virtual stand down of our national air defense in order to stage the planes hitting the towers without the standard protocol of intervention.

I dont have to dispove what didnt happen. you have to prove it did

Nice ploy but I can show the planes flying into the building. Have any pictures of them setting up the explosives ?

There's lots of video of the controlled demolition explosions in this documentary...you'd actually have to watch it though, not just post that the link is biased in favor of proving the conspiracy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Did you also know that the towers were built to withstand a direct hit from a plane?

Yes, they were designed take the impact of a 707 traveling a low speeds. This doesn't mean they would "withstand" the impact. Buildings cannot be designed to completely withstand a catastrophic event like an aircraft hitting them, that's impossible. They are designed in a way to try and hold up long enough to get the inhabitants out safely. For example, if you look a term like 2-hour wall in relation to fire rating you will understand it's meant to safely keep the fire from penetrating it for 2 hours. There is no material that has an Infinity-Rating. The fire rating system is all about getting people out safely, not necessarily make a building immune to fire.

Also, at risk of continually repeating a link (which is one reason why I mentioned looking around the forum to see the responses), here's a recent link done by a demolition expert. I seriously hate having to re-post this, but this 911 topic constantly seems to start from complete scratch everytime.
Demo expert report in PDF format

That's bull s**t, the much older and nowhere near as structurally sound empire state building was hit by a B-52 bomber in 1945 and it's structural integrity was fine. The building needed repairs where the impact and subsequent fires were, but it never came close to collapsing. Certainly not in less than an hour after the impact.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

Your fire wall rating is an inaccurate analogy. The twin towers were built to withstand the impact of a plane, not for a time to evacuate, but to remain standing.

Also, if the next response is going to be about burning jet fuel travelling down the elevator shafts, this would still be the first time a modern sky scraper collapsed due to fire, and I would love to know what fueld the fire while traveling down a hermetically sealed elevator shaft.

The Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, made with the same type of fire resistant reinforced concrete and steel as the towers, withstood a 26 hour inferno without collapse.

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

The official story does not support the laws of physics as we know them.

[NAB]

homerjay_s wrote: NAB wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

What truth? You haven't presented anything to dispute the controlled demolition theory, which is 100% supported by factual evidence.

The buildings collapses are consistent with a controlled demolition, the PNAC cabal had prior motive, the connections required to get into the building to set it up, and the influence over NORAD to initiate a virtual stand down of our national air defense in order to stage the planes hitting the towers without the standard protocol of intervention.

I dont have to dispove what didnt happen. you have to prove it did

Nice ploy but I can show the planes flying into the building. Have any pictures of them setting up the explosives ?

There's lots of video of the controlled demolition explosions in this documentary...you'd actually have to watch it though, not just post that the link is biased in favor of proving the conspiracy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Did you also know that the towers were built to withstand a direct hit from a plane?

Yes, they were designed take the impact of a 707 traveling a low speeds. This doesn't mean they would "withstand" the impact. Buildings cannot be designed to completely withstand a catastrophic event like an aircraft hitting them, that's impossible. They are designed in a way to try and hold up long enough to get the inhabitants out safely. For example, if you look a term like 2-hour wall in relation to fire rating you will understand it's meant to safely keep the fire from penetrating it for 2 hours. There is no material that has an Infinity-Rating. The fire rating system is all about getting people out safely, not necessarily make a building immune to fire.

Also, at risk of continually repeating a link (which is one reason why I mentioned looking around the forum to see the responses), here's a recent link done by a demolition expert. I seriously hate having to re-post this, but this 911 topic constantly seems to start from complete scratch everytime.
Demo expert report in PDF format

That's bull s**t, the much older and nowhere near as structurally sound empire state building was hit by a B-52 bomber in 1945 and it's structural integrity was fine. The building needed repairs where the impact and subsequent fires were, but it never came close to collapsing. Certainly not in less than an hour after the impact.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

Your fire wall rating is an inaccurate analogy. The twin towers were built to withstand the impact of a plane, not for a time to evacuate, but to remain standing.

Also, if the next response is going to be about burning jet fuel travelling down the elevator shafts, this would still be the first time a modern sky scraper collapsed due to fire, and I would love to know what fueld the fire while traveling down a hermetically sealed elevator shaft.

The Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, made with the same type of fire resistant reinforced concrete and steel as the towers, withstood a 26 hour inferno without collapse.

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

The official story does not support the laws of physics as we know them.

B-52 or B-25? There's quite a difference. :wink:
The Empire State Building wasn't "nearly" as structurally sound? Care to clarify that statement?

Try re-reading what I wrote. 707 travelling a low speeds vs. a 757 travelling at high speeds. F=ma. Think the F was higher in the later than the former? What difference would there be in the design parameters of the two?

Sorry I won't bore you with the fuel having some kind of "impact" on the collapse, because you seem to have your mind made up already. Just think on the Madrid reference you made. There is a difference between the impact a fire has on a building vs. a fire/severe aircraft impact on a building. If you can't understand this difference, then I guess we can end this discussion.

Finally, my fire-rating analogy was completely spot-on. Buildings are designed to survive their design parameters and get the inhabitants out safely, when those parameters are exceeded bad things happen. People in the business of designing buildings were not surprised they collapsed. Many in the industry were surprised they held out as long as they did, thus allowing that many more to escape and survive buildings that had been dealt a blow they weren't designed to handle.

[Claudia Schiffer]

homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

What truth? You haven't presented anything to dispute the controlled demolition theory, which is 100% supported by factual evidence.

The buildings collapses are consistent with a controlled demolition, the PNAC cabal had prior motive, the connections required to get into the building to set it up, and the influence over NORAD to initiate a virtual stand down of our national air defense in order to stage the planes hitting the towers without the standard protocol of intervention.

I dont have to dispove what didnt happen. you have to prove it did

Nice ploy but I can show the planes flying into the building. Have any pictures of them setting up the explosives ?

There's lots of video of the controlled demolition explosions in this documentary...you'd actually have to watch it though, not just post that the link is biased in favor of proving the conspiracy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Did you also know that the towers were built to withstand a direct hit from a plane?

Many planes you mean. Yeap! Heard it from the man himself. I cant find the link though.

[homerjay_s]

Claudia Schiffer wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

What truth? You haven't presented anything to dispute the controlled demolition theory, which is 100% supported by factual evidence.

The buildings collapses are consistent with a controlled demolition, the PNAC cabal had prior motive, the connections required to get into the building to set it up, and the influence over NORAD to initiate a virtual stand down of our national air defense in order to stage the planes hitting the towers without the standard protocol of intervention.

I dont have to dispove what didnt happen. you have to prove it did

Nice ploy but I can show the planes flying into the building. Have any pictures of them setting up the explosives ?

There's lots of video of the controlled demolition explosions in this documentary...you'd actually have to watch it though, not just post that the link is biased in favor of proving the conspiracy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Did you also know that the towers were built to withstand a direct hit from a plane?

Many planes you mean. Yeap! Heard it from the man himself. I cant find the link though.

There's plenty of evidence in this link, including, I think, the quote you're talking about from Fran DeMartini, the onsite construction manager of the towers, who said this:

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Also, per this link, the 767's that hit the tower would actually have a lower kinetic energy rating due to their lower cruising speed.

There's also no evidence to support the claim that the building was rated to withstand the impact of a 707 only at low speeds.

[Dookiestix]

flamboyant wrote: Dookiestix wrote: How convEEEnient....



It is convenient if you compare reality with the contortionist exercises that the conspiracy delusionals have to twist themselves into to try to put together the semblance of a coherent theory.

It's also very telling - when confronted with the cold, hard reality that Osama met with the 9/11 hijackers, the best response you can get from the Bush-did-9/11 crowd is a two-word sarcastic reply.
You have absolutely no proof that these images are what our government and MSM say they are. None.

Bush didn't care about bin Laden as he was busy invading a country that never attacked us. To me, that's plenty of proof to believe that this could all be BS. And now Pakistan gives bin Laden and al Qaeda sanctuary, and Republicans are deathly silent on the issue.

That's telling as well. Now we have a screed from ABC attempting to rewrite history yet again.

I sense a foreboding pattern here. Actions speak louder than words, and Americans are starting to do the math.

No wonder the GOP is held in such low regard by the American people right now.