XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.america   
   XPost: alt.politics.bush   
   From: JohnP_Da_Evil_Joo@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com   
      
   <911falseflag@gmail.com> wrote in a message   
      
   >I given you quotes from firefighters in the Oral Histories regarding   
   > the twin towers, witness testimonies of low level falshes moving   
   > around the building like a belt of explosions, of sequences of booms   
   > signature of controlled demolition jobs. eplosions heard and see...   
      
   Why are none of the above able to be heard or seen in any of the videos?   
      
   Here's one of the available buildings where the camerman is very close to   
   the tower as it begins to collapse. What explosions do you hear?   
      
   While the eyewitness accounts are interesting, without corroborating   
   evidence, neither you nor anyone else can claim to know the source of these   
   explosions. The larger body of evidence offers no support for controlled   
   demolition of either the towers or WTC 7.   
      
   > and yet you've feigned a rebuttal by giving me quotes   
   > regarding WTC7 which has nothing to do with the   
   > quotes above about the twin towers?   
      
   So is your claim now that the towers were brought down by controlled   
   demolition but WTC 7 was not?   
      
   > The statements were suppressed and withheld from publication for 4 years.   
   > They are not cited in the 911CR or NIST or FEMA reports.   
      
   Why would they be cited in any of those reports?   
   What is your evidence they were 'supressed' for 4 years? I have seen   
   statements indicating various types of explosions and loud noises at the   
   towers over the past several years. Are you deluded enough to believe that   
   anything you haven't seen has been supressed up until you first saw it?   
      
   > Why were these testimonies withheld from publication?   
      
   Why do you fall hook, line and sinker for kook theories? Do you not ever   
   verify any of this crap before parroting it?   
      
   > By the way, the statements you've provided say at most that they were   
   > worried the building migh collapse...   
      
   Yes... something which would not have been the case in a controlled   
   demolition. In your imagined secret conspiracy, the building would have been   
   fine and presented no threat of collapsing up until the moment the   
   explosives went off.   
      
   > - a collapse could mean anything from toppling   
   > to the side, or from a section of the builindg falling   
   > of, all from a few floors pancaking.   
      
   Yes. Firefighters aren't particularly concerned with how some conspiracy   
   kook might later view their assesment of the condition of the building.   
   Their concern is not being in a building when it collapses.   
      
   > None of these statements presdict..   
      
   Correct. The statements were from firefighters, not the psychic friends   
   network.   
      
   > or justify what we saw happen which was a free-fall global   
   > implosion.,   
      
   Only kooks saw that.   
      
   > There is a big difference between "collapse" and "Implosion".,,   
      
   Well, one starts with a 'C' and one starts with an 'I'. As far as controlled   
   demolitions are concerned, there is also the distinction that "implosion" is   
   the word used by people who know nothing about controlled demolitions, as   
   buildings are not actually imploded, they are made to collapse in on   
   themselves.   
      
   The preparation for a controlled demolition for a building the size of WTC   
   7, or, especially the towers, would take several months each. The tallest   
   steel framed structure brought down via controlled demolition to date was   
   the 27 story J.L. Hidson department store building in Detroit. It took 3   
   months to prep and rig that building for demolition. Non structural walls   
   are removed, support beams are cut through partially, explosives are placed,   
   detonators are rigged. The end result is not something people would walk   
   past every day without noticing. Given the loactions of the supports in the   
   towers - there were only the core columns and the perimeter columns, there   
   is no manner in which explosives would be rigged to these columns without   
   attracting the attention of the tenants.   
      
   Add to such common sense considerations, the complete lack of evidence to   
   support it, and a controlled demolition theory involving the use of   
   explosives is clearly ridiculous.   
      
   > At no time in history have we seen this happen to a building other   
   > than one brought down by explosives in controlled demolitions.   
      
   Are you sure?   
      
   > So the prima facie assumption is controlled demolition.   
      
   Only a kook ignores facts and evidence and relies on assumptions.   
      
   > And yet you try to ague without substance that the building came down   
   > by totally unsuspicious cicrumstances.   
      
   I find it rather suspicious that a plane crashed into each tower. I find it   
   rather suspicious that the towers fell onto WTC 7 and caused major damage   
   and sparked extensive, out of control fires. What deluded you into thinking   
   nothing suspicious happened? Were you actually under the impression that the   
   buildings were all just standing there, it was a normal day, and they   
   suddenly fell?   
      
   > And you deny controlled demolition experts who say that WTC7 was   
   > undoubtedly controlled demolition.   
      
   What a completely moronic comment. How could I not deny them? You have not   
   provided a single controlled demolitions expert who has studied the evidence   
   and arrived at such a conclusion.   
      
    > And you refuse to acknolwedge that there is actually no official   
   > explanation for the collapse of WTC7 while NIST is yet to finish their   
   > report on WTC7...   
      
   I should refuse to acknowledge that you just made that statment and allow   
   you to back out somewhat gracefully.   
      
   The NIST has not yet completed their investigation or the report based on   
   the conclusions of that investigation, and you find it somehow mysterious   
   that they have not offered these conclusions based on the fact that they are   
   still conducting the investigation?   
      
   > and you also refuse to acknowlege that in Dec 2006 NIST   
   > announced that they would consider hypothetical blast scenarions   
   > being responsible for the collapse, and they will also investigate the   
   > possible use of Thermite in the collapse...   
      
   I guess we need to add "you also refuse to acknowlege" to your growing list   
   of concepts of which you seem to have no clue.   
      
   > I suppose because this would help explain why   
   > vapourised steel beams and molten steel were found in   
   > pools in the rubble of WTC7 footbring implosion.   
      
   Vaporised steel beams?   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)