Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
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?
You need more Jimmy, clearly you're confused and have begun to sound like a blabbering drunk.
Comrade Stalin
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
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.
You are ing retarded.
Of course, in the 9/11 truth religion, you don't need hard evidence to believe in something. Brother culorut.
Comrade Stalin
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
You need more Jimmy, clearly you're confused and have begun to sound like a blabbering drunk.
>
I'm not the idiot who contridicts himself multiple times. Get your retarded ass story straight, at the very least. And you call me drunk...big time LOL :haha: :haha: :haha:
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Of course, in the 9/11 truth religion, you don't need hard evidence to believe in something. Brother culorut.
Seriously, have you lost your mind?
I really have no idea what religion you are talking about that I am part of, same for these contradictions you speak of. Brother culorut?
There are definitely voices inside your head, you sound completely bat insane.
Comrade Stalin
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Seriously, have you lost your mind?
I really have no idea what religion you are talking about that I am part of, same for these contradictions you speak of. Brother culorut?
There are definitely voices inside your head, you sound completely bat insane.
Judging by your paranoid delusions, contradictions, and disregard for scientific truth, all of which is the hallmark of religious belief, I'd have to conclude that it is you who has lost your mind. Where is this fascist global dictatorship with which you speak of?
evil_cookie
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Seriously, have you lost your mind?
I really have no idea what religion you are talking about that I am part of, same for these contradictions you speak of. Brother culorut?
There are definitely voices inside your head, you sound completely bat insane.
My god you're not only incredibly stupid but you're really, really annoying.
Bad news friend, he's not the one that's insane--you are. So please, just get the out of here already. Go hold up signs at Dundas Square or something, just stop talking here.
basilisk
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
So the Hudson building is just a fraction of what WTC 7 was? Did you even bother to check before posting that nonsense?
Yes, you win a point! I was going by height, not square footage, and thinking of the twin towers when I wrote that.
Now would you care to say anything of substance? Like I mentioned, bringing up something like the JL Hudson building is where you could begin to build a case.
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
The company changed it's name to Stratesec.
Indeed it did, in 1998... in compliance with a court order resultant from a copyright infringment suit. It's interesting; however, that a company with resources and influence sufficient to plan a controlled demolition of several buildings, three years before setting those demolitions off, keep this hiden from other contractors doing the same work in the same location in the interloping years, and manage to keep anyone from talking about it for a decade somehow lacks the influence and power to win a simple copyright suit, no?
quote:
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.
As I already mentioned, Marvin left his directorship in 2000 and had sold all his shares at that time. Additionally, he would have been one vote on the board and boards tend to be involved in the high level running of operations... like strategic plans, mergers, hiring the executives, etc. To think the board of directors would have significant direct involvement in any one installation a firm was involved in exhibits a significant lack of understanding of business on your part. Also, as I mentioned they lost the contract to do electrical installation in 1998 due to inability to complete the work, which lead to financial difficulties that resulted in them being de-listed from the NYSE in 2002. So again... unless Marvin had the unwaivering support of the board and executives of the company to blow a good job by spending their time rigging explosives in order to bring down these buildings killing thousands of people if and when his brother, who was not yet running for president and was quite happy as the governor of Texas, became president 4 years after they started this contract this whole securacom angle seems pretty nutty... no?
With regard to Wirt Walker; at best he is a distant relative; however, there are no documented family links.
With regard to Kuwait-American Corp... Saud Al Sabah was the chairman of this company. The Al Sabah's and Bush's have been linked through business for many many years. It makes a great deal of sense that if he were backing it some of the Bushs would have also been investing. This does not by any means suggest that anything untoward was going on. Both families also invest heavily in Barrick Gold... holy ... now that I think of it... Peter Munk the chairman of Barrick started his carear as an electrical engineer... HE COULD HAVE RUN THE CABLES FOR THE DEMOLITION... HOLY
richard raiban
quote:
Originally posted by basilisk
I always wonder why you would want to invoke controlled demolition. The evidence isn't there, the physics don't support it, and you don't need CD to support the notion that rich white guys let it happen so they could start an unjust war and make a fortune.
That last bit doesn't seem all that unlikely to me--though it's difficult to produce a testable hypothesis. Controlled demolition is another matter. You can ask: what sort of explosive would have been required? How much? What sort of residue would it leave? How could those who planted the charges be sure no one would leak the story? It is entirely valid to treat it like a thought experiment and work backwards to arrive at some kind of scenario. The problem is, anytime this is done you run up against the laws of physics and the lack of physical evidence. (We could get into this but trust me--I have watched the Youtube videos and read the original research. It doesn't amount to anything IMO, but I am not an expert in analytical chemistry or engineering. Then again, the overwhelming majority of experts also fail to find Jones' research credible.)
I get why the physical component is important people. Arguing the geopolitics is forever ambiguous. Yes, Bush and his cronies acted out of self-interest and did all sorts of heinous things. But they didn't leave much of a paper trail so it's all up in the air: how much they knew, when they knew it, etc. Without evidence all we have is our gut feeling.
So the CTs have turned to Youtube to make a case for physical evidence. The issue: as much as physical evidence would create a rock-solid case for Truther concerns, claims of this nature can be evaluated scientifically (unlike geopolitical matters). It's a double-edged sword, you see? And the razor-sharp edge of science has come down in favour of the NIST report, random Youtube videos and non-expert testimony notwithstanding.
Let me sum it up: the evidence for controlled demolition is extremely poor but this has little bearing on whether American foreign policy is orchestrated by shape-changing space lizards. Really. In other words, you don't need CD to advance a conspiracy theory about 9/11 being an inside job. If they're so crafty they could have masterminded the whole multiple plan hijacking thing (which, you know, we do have pretty good evidence for, unlike CD). At the root of all this is an irrational inability to accept that hurling jumbo jets at skyscrapers might knock them down! Why is that?
And again, perhaps someone can answer my long-standing question: if 9/11 was an inside job and the towers were taken down by controlled demolition then why was WTC 7 blown up hours after the fact? It hardly seems like the mark of a perfectly executed conspiracy. Someone couldn't find the trigger for five hours? And this is just one of many questions that would need to be answered for anyone to take controlled demolition seriously.
If you guys are serious about CD I think the very first thing you would need to demonstrate is how plausible it is. What explosives, how much, when and how were they planted, etc.? I've looked into this aspect of CD and it doesn't seem possible, not when you consider the mass of explosives that would be needed (and the manpower to install it all). "Nano-thermite" is constantly bandied around but it is a poor choice for demolition: the explosion isn't directed. No professional would use it. And so on. There's a whole web-work of stuff here that makes CD extremely unlikely.
Of course, if you have some better evidence that I am not aware of... please feel free to bring it up.
i appreciate your reply. this is the type of discussion i was looking for. one that is civil. i can't really reply right now other than this but when i have time i definitely will.
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by basilisk
Yes, you win a point! I was going by height, not square footage, and thinking of the twin towers when I wrote that.
Now would you care to say anything of substance? Like I mentioned, bringing up something like the JL Hudson building is where you could begin to build a case.
I was talking about the Hudson building, you specifically said it was a fraction of the size of what WTC 7 was to prove your point. You admitted that it can be done (controlled demolition) to a larger building, why would it be harder to do pull off in a smaller building with less area to cover.
If you are going to plagiarize and least check your facts.
:p
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by evil_cookie
My god you're not only incredibly stupid but you're really, really annoying.
Bad news friend, he's not the one that's insane--you are. So please, just get the out of here already. Go hold up signs at Dundas Square or something, just stop talking here.
Really because the only crack heads bringing up these crazy excuses which are a direct cause of the voices in their heads are the people you are agreeing with,
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Judging by your paranoid delusions, contradictions, and disregard for scientific truth, all of which is the hallmark of religious belief, I'd have to conclude that it is you who has lost your mind. Where is this fascist global dictatorship with which you speak of?
I challenge you to use the search function quoting me posting these made up excuses and I will believe you. Until you do so and prove it you should shut the up.
basilisk
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
I was talking about the Hudson building, you specifically said it was a fraction of the size of what WTC 7 was to prove your point. You admitted that it can be done (controlled demolition) to a larger building, why would it be harder to do pull off in a smaller building with less area to cover.
If you are going to plagiarize and least check your facts.
:p
"Admitted"? I did the primary research here so we can have a rational discussion of your theories and get beyond all the mud-slinging. Instead you're making a big deal out of something inconsequential with no regard for the dozens of occasions you've been caught promulgating outright falsehoods. And "plagiarize"? Do you even know what that word means? My sources are cited in the text unlike yours. Anyway, since you seem so intent on being an I'm not about to sink any more energy into this.
