Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:27:21 +0100, Phil Da Lick! wrote:
Homer wrote:
Verily I say unto thee, that thufir spake thusly:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:37:57 +0100, Phil Da Lick! wrote:
They apparently "found" the tapes a year later and the reporter
said she "made a mistake".
Yeah right, pull the other one.
To put it another way, they found the tapes and admitted a correction
-- which is an all too common occurrence. How do you get conspiracy
from that?
Well the fact that they accurately and confidently reported the collapse
of a building, 23 minutes before it actually happened, and then
supported the claim that it happened naturally rather than by means of
demolition, is a pretty big clue.
Something fishy went on that day for sure.
They should come after you loons with nets and white coats because your
obvious paranoia is effecting your judgment.
Obsession with Linux tends to do that.....
BTW as for Building 7, which I have been inside of many times, think huge
generators and the diesel fuel needed to run them.
This is highly typical of large buildings in NYC.
Also having been in all of those buildings many times, I can tell you that
security was very tight after the 1993 terrorist attack. Cameras, both
video and still, motion detecting devices etc all over the place.
How on earth, could ANYONE, plant explosives, in all the correct places, to
force a controlled demolition of any of this?
Quite easily. They could have done it over many years, via "maintenance
crews" and suchlike.
How could they keep this all quiet?
Well, they haven't.
And why?
Why? $$$
It's total baloney, conjecture, Monday morning quarterbacks and over
zealous inaccurate reporting at the time of the incident.
Maybe. Maybe not. Its all circumstantial evidence of course, but there
is rather a lot of it:
- Buildings not insured until months before attack. And insured twice over.
- Buildings well known asbestos problem meant they had to come down
anyhow within 15-20 years.
- Airline pilots maintain chances of rookie pilots hitting buildings on
manhatten island with jumbos virtually nil due to wind conditions.
- Buildings come down like controlled demolition. No other buildings
damaged in fall.
- Islamic people take basic flying courses and show no interest in how
to land planes and no-one bats an eyelid.
- BBC correspondent reports collpase of WTC7 before it happens.
And I haven't even mentioned the pentagon attack that appeared more like
a missile strike.
Hell, I dunno what went on that day, but I sure as hell don't accept the
reported version of events. I don't *actually* care what went on. I
just accept that it isn't as black-and-white as we were spoon fed.
It also shows us how little we know about structural engineering in
general.
Well, I'll trust the structural engineers to tell me about structural
engineering cos I know next to nothing about it. When some of them say
the way the buildings came down was fishy then I'll believe them.
|
|
