History 5/2/15 New allegations of Saudi involvement in 9/11

[Thrawn]

i know you believe everything you read on the internet, but that's hardly my fault. you're full of s**t. it didn't mean that in 2001, it still doesn't mean that in 2015. such degrees of ignorance 14 years after the event is poor form.

Don't play semantics. Pull it in that context means to pull down. There are just too many coincidences otherwise. Like the fact this man receiving billions from a terrorism insurance claim, and his "lucky" absence from the twin towers on the day because he had to go to the dermatologist.

And if you're going to use Jowenko as a source from that debunking website of yours, you seem to be forgetting that he actually said that building 7 was a clear demolish job, that whoever did it were very professional. You're a walking contradiction.

ohhhhh right. so you can quote rumsfeld, whom every truther at the time claimed was part of the 911 scheme, but i can't quote his department you guys are so predictable.

Well yes, I can quote him because it's pretty hard to cover up missing trillions like that.

Explaining it away conveniently is a lot easier. Trillions of dollars don't merely go "missing".

 

[Long Live HFC]

Don't play semantics. Pull it in that context means to pull down.

nope. nobody uses that term to refer to demolishing a building. you just read that on some stupid truther site. you know * all about demolition.

Like the fact this man receiving billions from a terrorism insurance claim

yeah. fancy having terrorism insurance when you own something that has been previously targeted by terrorists and then there's that inconvenient fact that the insurance payout didn't cover silverstein's outlays, lol.

It has always been a struggle to get enough money to rebuild ground zero.

The insurance proceeds, about $4.6 billion, only covered about half the total cost [of re-building]. The other half had to be made up with a combination of state, federal and private financing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/nyregion/08insure.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&

And if you're going to use Jowenko as a source from that debunking website of yours, you seem to be forgetting that he actually said that building 7 was a clear demolish job, that whoever did it were very professional.

i know exactly who jowenko was and what he said. i included that quote so you could see one of your experts pointing out your fantasies. pull it has never been used to refer to demolition. except by idiots. like you.

Well yes, I can quote him because it's pretty hard to cover up missing trillions like that.

no, you quote him because it suits you, while ignoring evidence from his department, because it doesn't suit you. government evidence can't be trusted, except when you want it to be otherwise.

Explaining it away conveniently is a lot easier. Trillions of dollars don't merely go "missing".

i've already pointed out and sourced the fact that it wasn't money that was missing, but transaction records. and while it was unaccounted for at the time (several months before 911) , it eventually was accounted for. you know, despite the cunning plan to fire a "missile" into the pentagon to stop the investigation. that had been going on for months. and was already in senate hearings. and had very little to do with the current administration.

Pentagon's finances in disarray

By JOHN M. DONNELLY The Associated Press 03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday.

The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.

check out the date of the article, cretin.

 

[Subprime]

From the NIST report.

the reader should bear in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding for this investigation to begin.​

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

The collapse of a steel-framed skyscraper due to office fires is completely unprecedented. The steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis but instead this key evidence was quickly recycled to local salvage yards or sent overseas.

So in order to cover up a massive conspiracy to murder thousands of its own citizens, the US government leaves the 'key evidence' lying around in a massive pile of rubble in over-crowded lower Manhattan for a year or more, meanwhile thousands of New York-based relatives and friends of the victims get to work on the demolition and removal project, and the 'key evidence', the scrap steel, is inexplicably sold to local salvage yards or overseas buyers.

This sale thereby giving full legal title of the scrap steel to the local salvage yards or overseas buyers which would then be assured as to its provenance and able to use the 'key evidence' embedded within it as they saw fit.

What a cunning plan.

 

[CountryRace]

Why do they take away the crime scenes before an investigation

Protocol out the window. Comveient

 

[Subprime]

He said it was brought down in a controlled fashion. Maybe you should ask him what that means?
<snip>.

Here is John Kerry's sentence that includes the phrase 'controlled fashion' at ~2.40 of the youtube:

"I do know that that wall I remember was in danger of collapse and I think they made a decision based on the danger that it had of destroying other things that they did it in a controlled fashion."

I don't need to ask him.

He is clearly talking about a wall not a building.

That is obvious.

 

[Zidane98]

The silverstein conspiracy has got to be one of the worst ever to come out of conspiracy theorists.

They completely ignore the fact that Silverstein had to keep paying the lease whilst engaged in a court battle over the insurance payout and while the site was being rebuilt. Silverstein ended up losing financially after the whole event.

 

[Long Live HFC]

The silverstein conspiracy has got to be one of the worst ever to come out of conspiracy theorists.

sadly it really isn't

 

[Lester Burnham]

So in order to cover up a massive conspiracy to murder thousands of its own citizens, the US government leaves the 'key evidence' lying around in a massive pile of rubble in over-crowded lower Manhattan for a year or more, meanwhile thousands of New York-based relatives and friends of the victims get to work on the demolition and removal project, and the 'key evidence', the scrap steel, is inexplicably sold to local salvage yards or overseas buyers.

This sale thereby giving full legal title of the scrap steel to the local salvage yards or overseas buyers which would then be assured as to its provenance and able to use the 'key evidence' embedded within it as they saw fit.

What a cunning plan.

I have never alleged that the US conspired to murder thousands of its own citizens. But some of the official reports from that day are incomplete to the point of pointing to a conspiracy to hide the facts and, in the case of WTC 7, a finding at odds with the evidence.

As regards families and friends of the victims, they actually campaigned to prevent the removal of the evidence so it could be properly examined before it was disposed of. It never happened.

Can you imagine that the Rialto Tower was the first ever skyscraper that collapsed to the ground due to an office fire and they just sold the scrap to China before examining the evidence and working out why?

 

[Zidane98]

I have never alleged that the US conspired to murder thousands of its own citizens. But some of the official reports from that day are incomplete to the point of pointing to a conspiracy to hide the facts and, in the case of WTC 7, a finding at odds with the evidence.

As regards families and friends of the victims, they actually campaigned to prevent the removal of the evidence so it could be properly examined before it was disposed of. It never happened.

Can you imagine that the Rialto Tower was the first ever skyscraper that collapsed to the ground due to an office fire and they just sold the scrap to China before examining the evidence and working out why?

An office fire? You're forgetting a 100 ton + airplane filled with fuel impacting the towers at speeds of 800 km/h. The reasons for the progressive collapse of all the buildings were fully investigated and documented. There is no conspiracy in the site being cleared of scrap metal and being recycled.

 

[Lester Burnham]

An office fire? You're forgetting a 100 ton + airplane filled with fuel impacting the towers at speeds of 800 km/h. The reasons for the progressive collapse of all the buildings were fully investigated and documented. There is no conspiracy in the site being cleared of scrap metal and being recycled.

I have been talking about WTC 7. No airplane hit it

 

[Long Live HFC]

to be fair there are truthers in here who don't think planes hit the towers either, lol

 

[Subprime]

I have never alleged that the US conspired to murder thousands of its own citizens. But some of the official reports from that day are incomplete to the point of pointing to a conspiracy to hide the facts and, in the case of WTC 7, a finding at odds with the evidence.

As regards families and friends of the victims, they actually campaigned to prevent the removal of the evidence so it could be properly examined before it was disposed of. It never happened.

Can you imagine that the Rialto Tower was the first ever skyscraper that collapsed to the ground due to an office fire and they just sold the scrap to China before examining the evidence and working out why?

The general alternative theory to Al Qaida doing 9/11, as I understand it, is that the US military industrial complex (for want of a better term) did it, that's what I was referring to.

There were never before office fires like these ones. A documentary on SBS a few weeks ago went through the chemistry side of things on 9/11. A 100 tonne aircraft contains around 30 tonnes of aluminium. That 30 tonnes was propelled into the middle of each tower at high speed and effectively placed in a furnace-like environment due to the fires that raged after the fuel exploded.

Footage was shown of molten metal spilling from one of the towers. The NIST report found evidence of molten aluminium but did not consider its interaction with water apparently. Molten aluminium when combined with water from the sprinkler system creates a highly explosive mix. That's what caused the collapse according to the chemists interviewed on that program.

As for WTC7, it was part of the WTC complex that was built on land reclaimed from the Hudson river and was in close proximity to the 2 largest building collapses ever. To me it is a lot more likely that these were factors in its collapse than any sort of controlled demolition theory.

Finally, New York is a major financial and commercial centre where land in expensive and any delays would cost a fortune so if expediency and commercial pressures caused short-cuts in the process I'm not surprised.

However that is not a conspiracy in my book.

 

[Werewolf]

to be fair there are truthers in here who don't think planes hit the towers either, lol

Most people see the "no-planes theory" for what it is - disinformation that splinters the "truth movement"

 

[Long Live HFC]

Most people see the "no-planes theory" for what it is - disinformation that splinters the "truth movement"

well no, most people certainly don't see it like that at all. only truthers see it that way because they're unwilling to admit that people that stupid are on the same page (generally) as themselves.

go ask Smiling Buddha- he's not disinfo and he doesn't think any planes were involved lol.

 

[Lester Burnham]

As for WTC7, it was part of the WTC complex that was built on land reclaimed from the Hudson river and was in close proximity to the 2 largest building collapses ever. To me it is a lot more likely that these were factors in its collapse than any sort of controlled demolition theory.

Really not sure what you are talking about here. NIST said WTC7 was brought down by office fires. Nothing to do with it being on reclaimed land or close proximity to WTC 1 or 2.

Stop guessing and read the reports.

 

[Subprime]

Really not sure what you are talking about here. NIST said WTC7 was brought down by office fires. Nothing to do with it being on reclaimed land or close proximity to WTC 1 or 2.

Stop guessing and read the reports.

NIST also failed to consider the effect of molten aluminium and water can have in combination, at least according to the chemists on the recent SBS documentary. So the NIST report wasn't as comprehensive as it could have been.

What is your position, do you believe the NIST report implicitly?

I'm not sure what your argument is?

 

[Long Live HFC]

I'm not sure what your argument is?

he doesn't really have one. basically it boils down to "NIST report isn't exhaustive. this means controlled demolition is a likely hypothesis".

 

[Subprime]

he doesn't really have one. basically it boils down to "NIST report isn't exhaustive. this means controlled demolition is a likely hypothesis".

I'm wondering the same thing.

Apparently there were no chemists on the NIST panel so they didn't really look at the chemistry angle, there's an old saying, to the man with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

 

[Lester Burnham]

NIST also failed to consider the effect of molten aluminium and water can have in combination, at least according to the chemists on the recent SBS documentary. So the NIST report wasn't as comprehensive as it could have been.

What is your position, do you believe the NIST report implicitly?

I'm not sure what your argument is?

As I have stated previously, I believe the NIST report should have stated that they didn't know what caused WTC 7 to collapse like no other steel framed building before that.They made a definitive conclusion because that was what required of them.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

An office fire? You're forgetting a 100 ton + airplane filled with fuel impacting the towers at speeds of 800 km/h.

Funny thing about those planes traveling at those speeds.

Such speeds at low altitude render the plane virtually uncontrollable, and liable to break apart.



You see the air is much thicker at sea level than up at 30,000 feat where these planes usually fly.

Look into it. Do your own research.

Most people see the "no-planes theory" for what it is - disinformation that splinters the "truth movement"

I used to think so too, until I spent some time looking into it for myself.

 

[Zidane98]

Funny thing about those planes traveling at those speeds.

Such speeds at low altitude render the plane virtually uncontrollable, and liable to break apart.

You see the air is much thicker at sea level than up at 30,000 feat where these planes usually fly.

Look into. Do your own research.

I used to think so too, until I spent some time looking into it for myself.

This should be amusing.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Such speeds at low altitude render the plane virtually uncontrollable, and liable to break apart.

what a load of nonsense. we'll add "flight dynamics" to the ever-increasing list of things SB doesn't understand.

 

[Zidane98]

what a load of nonsense. we'll add "flight dynamics" to the ever-increasing list of things SB doesn't understand.

He is an expert on holograms though.

 

[katana]

what a load of nonsense. we'll add "flight dynamics" to the ever-increasing list of things SB doesn't understand.

source?

 

[Zidane98]

Pilots for truith are full of s**t. They use a 737 model in MS flight simulator when the aircraft involved were Boeing 757.

As discussed here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pilots-for-9-11-truth-simulations-video-debunked.4809/

They also quote groundspeeds not airspeeds. Further to this commercial aircraft are certified to withstand +2.5 G to -1.0 G and the airspeeds which the aircraft flew at are within that range. The moron that created the simulation of a 737 reckons it will break up at VMO + 42 knots (1.2g). That is simply not true in anyway, shape or forum but unfortunately there seems to be plenty of fools that are sucked in by this nonsense.

This conspiracy theory is even dumber than the Silverstein one. Completely and absolutely debunked.