Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Just and FYI, WTC 7 shared foundation members and some infrastructure systems with the towers, damage to those lead to a critical failure of WTC7's internal support structure... if I recall my conversation with the engineer that wrote the report for WTC's insurers correctly.
Also, why is it that you don't address the weaknesses in your whole Bush Securacom thing? None of your CT websites have done this for you already?
Ultimately, nothing we say here matters to you because you're only going to look for things that support your pre-conceived conclusions based on suspicion toward the US government/the man because it helps you feel more at ease with how inconsequential you are (external locus of control much?); however, for the benefit of those that may read your idiocy and think there may be something to it we'll continue to expose the fact that you cannot substantiate your position with credible evidence.
I've read all the reports, NIST themselves concluded it was the fires (or lack there of) because they had nothing else to go on that could have caused complete structural failure.
No I don't believe their conclusion, that's what we are arguing.
ChemEnhanced
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
The company changed it's name to Stratesec.
Marvin Bush was one of the directors of the company all along and had a significant share in it. Last time I checked directors help to direct companies, so do major share holders. Wirt Walker, his cousin also just happened to be the CEO of the same company. He also backed the company through KuwAm with some other notable persons.
Securacom was backed by the Kuwait-American Corporation, the same private firm which the Bush's have been linked to since the Gulf War. Mishal Yousef (Kuwaiti royal family member) included. The company had contracts for the WTC buildings, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines. All 3 were major players on 9/11.
A little odd that a security company which such coincidental contracts which was backed by some interesting individuals were never mentioned once in the 9/11 Commission Report.
wow...that is a lot of typing to basically say nothing of any value
basilisk
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
What you are saying and proved is that controlled demolition can take down buildings in this manner but because you and some others think it was impossible to do it without getting caught it did not happen.
I'm pointing out that the largest controlled demolition ever undertaken brought down a building that was a fraction the size of WTC 7, let alone the twin towers. Along with that fact are some estimates of the amount of explosives and number of man hours required to properly rig the building. If you're going to argue that WTC 1, 2, or 7 were brought down by controlled demolition then that's your starting point for building an argument. So far you've produced no factual evidence nor have you produced any sort of reasonable scenario outlining how it would have been possible. In fact, all we've seen is some terribly discredited connect-the-dots nonsense typical of conspiracy theorists. Nothing like an explanation of how the US government undertook a covert, leakless operation to use controlled demolition to bring down three buildings double or triple the size of the next largest controlled demolition in history.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not Youtube video analysis by amateurs.
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
In regards to WTC 7, why would they blow it up right away if nothing hit it? Blame it on the fire, blame it on the fire.
Is that really the most sensible strategy if you assume that all three buildings were rigged up to explode? Why would they not have taken WTC 7 down when the towers fell? In the cloud of dust no one would have guessed it was anything other than some part of the towers smashing into WTC 7. Collateral damage and all that.
Maybe the question that needs to be asked is this instead: why take WTC 7 down anyway? (Cue the "insurance money" explanation, maestro.)
ChemEnhanced
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Just and FYI, WTC 7 shared foundation members and some infrastructure systems with the towers, damage to those lead to a critical failure of WTC7's internal support structure... if I recall my conversation with the engineer that wrote the report for WTC's insurers correctly.
You are correct...at least that's what I've read in the insurance articles on the topic.
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
wow...that is a lot of typing to basically say nothing of any value
Marvin Bush is as corrupt as they come, he was present from the day the first bombing took place at the WTC towers in 1993 right up until September 10, 2001. Same company different name.
You should try reading Barbara Bush's book (his mother), some good stuff in there. This is very interesting as well,
Marvin Bush
Although considered the quietest – certainly the least public – of the Bush brood, the president’s youngest brother Marvin has certainly found that politics is not the only way to wealth and power. Since his father left the presidency, Marvin’s investments and shady business connections have involved him in a bonanza of international arms dealing, links to terrorism, insider trading, international data-mining, offshore tax-shelters, partnerships with the Chinese government, and companies (jointly owned with Arab royalty) that continue to get hundreds of millions of dollars in no-bid U.S. defense contracts. He has ties to Ahmad Chalabi, whose faulty intelligence helped justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq and who is wanted by the Kingdom of Jordan for massive bank fraud relating to the BCCI scandal. Marvin may not be very public, but if you look in the right places, he’s not invisible, either.
The family’s dealings with Kuwait start with George H.W. Bush’s interest in the Zapata Off-Shore oil company in the 1950’s and continue today. Marvin’s own long relationship with the emirate started in 1993, with a notorious junket where he and brother Neil struck sweetheart post-Gulf War deals with the Kuwaiti government, headed by the nation’s royal family, the al-Sabahs. Marvin worked with a DC-based defense firm selling electronic fences to the Kuwaiti Defense Ministry and attempted to join with Enron to rebuild a power plant destroyed during the Persian Gulf War.
That same year, Bush became a director of security company Stratesec, controlled by Kuwaiti-owned KuwAm. Marvin’s cousin Wirt D. Walker III, was Stratesec’s CEO and a KuwAm director. The son of the former Emir of Kuwait, Mishal Yousef Saud Al-Sabah, was KuwAm’s chairman. Stratesec was the security company at the World Trade Center from immediately after the first attack in 1993, right up to the day the planes hit. The company maintained electronic security systems at Dulles International Airport (where American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, originated). Stratesec also had a security contract at Los Alamos National Laboratories, privately operated by Lockheed-Martin, notorious for its security breaches and physical and intellectual property thefts.
Originally posted by basilisk
I'm pointing out that the largest controlled demolition ever undertaken brought down a building that was a fraction the size of WTC 7, let alone the twin towers. Along with that fact are some estimates of the amount of explosives and number of man hours required to properly rig the building. If you're going to argue that WTC 1, 2, or 7 were brought down by controlled demolition then that's your starting point for building an argument. So far you've produced no factual evidence nor have you produced any sort of reasonable scenario outlining how it would have been possible. In fact, all we've seen is some terribly discredited connect-the-dots nonsense typical of conspiracy theorists. Nothing like an explanation of how the US government undertook a covert, leakless operation to use controlled demolition to bring down three buildings double or triple the size of the next largest controlled demolition in history.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not Youtube video analysis by amateurs.
Is that really the most sensible strategy if you assume that all three buildings were rigged up to explode? Why would they not have taken WTC 7 down when the towers fell? In the cloud of dust no one would have guessed it was anything other than some part of the towers smashing into WTC 7. Collateral damage and all that.
Maybe the question that needs to be asked is this instead: why take WTC 7 down anyway? (Cue the "insurance money" explanation, maestro.)
9/11 was the largest controlled demolition. You are only arguing (and are way off) that it cannot be done because it took a whopping 12 people 24 days to rig and demolish a building that was in fact bigger then WTC building 7.
The Hudson building had 33 levels and a total of 2.2 million square feet. More support columns also because it encompassed a wider footprint on the ground, this would mean it would take much more time to rig up then a building with a smaller footprint like WTC building 7.
WTC building 7 was 1.9 million square feet. I would hardly call WTC building 7 a fraction of the size.
Someone is more then a little off and it's not me. It's not hard to see which building is really bigger and covers more ground.
Comrade Stalin
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Hey dick, bring some febreze with you next time. You're stinking up the joint.
Hey . Go to school. You might learn something. Critical thinking being one of them. Controlled demolition is IMPOSSIBLE. But of course, this is one of the tenets of your 9/11 truth religion, so I don't expect you'll accept the truth, even if it was thrown in your face. You are so so confused. The US gov ignores intel warnings on themselves since they did 9/11 according to you, and Cheney gives a stand down order so NORAD won't shoot down commercial jets but it's a missile that hit the Pentagon. How low can you go in your demonstrated idiocy?
Comrade Stalin
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
9/11 was the largest controlled demolition. You are only arguing (and are way off) that it cannot be done because it took a whopping 12 people 24 days to rig and demolish a building that was in fact bigger then WTC building 7.
The Hudson building had 33 levels and a total of 2.2 million square feet. More support columns also because it encompassed a wider footprint on the ground, this would mean it would take much more time to rig up then a building with a smaller footprint like WTC building 7.
WTC building 7 was 1.9 million square feet. I would hardly call WTC building 7 a fraction of the size.
Someone is more then a little off and it's not me. It's not hard to see which building is really bigger and covers more ground.
You have yet to provide ANY forensic evidence to support this. You provide nothing but grossly fallacious inferences and "connect the dots" scenarios. If our court system used this standard of truth, we'd all be ed. "Black ops" huh? LOL :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
evil_cookie
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Again I'm not confused at all, 9/11 was a black ops.
I'm fascinated by just how ignorant you are.
basilisk
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
9/11 was the largest controlled demolition. You are only arguing (and are way off) that it cannot be done because it took a whopping 12 people 24 days to rig and demolish a building that was in fact bigger then WTC building 7.
Did I say it cannot be done? No. I am pointing out that your claim is extraordinary and your evidence is hardly sufficient. Remember: just a few messages back you were saying that controlled demolition is a piece of cake. On the kind of scale we are talking about this is clearly not the case. Then again, if you're just going to throw out statements like "9/11 was the largest controlled demolition" without any sort of evidence beyond this debunked connect-the-dots nonsense about Bush's brother, well... no one can help you.
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by basilisk
Did I say it cannot be done? No. I am pointing out that your claim is extraordinary and your evidence is hardly sufficient. Remember: just a few messages back you were saying that controlled demolition is a piece of cake. On the kind of scale we are talking about this is clearly not the case. Then again, if you're just going to throw out statements like "9/11 was the largest controlled demolition" without any sort of evidence beyond this debunked connect-the-dots nonsense about Bush's brother, well... no one can help you.
So the Hudson building is just a fraction of what WTC 7 was? Did you even bother to check before posting that nonsense?
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
You have yet to provide ANY forensic evidence to support this. You provide nothing but grossly fallacious inferences and "connect the dots" scenarios. If our court system used this standard of truth, we'd all be ed. "Black ops" huh? LOL :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
What the are you talking about? WTC 7 was indeed smaller then the Hudson building. You don't need forensic evidence to look up the square footage and footprint size of a building.
