RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events >> Conspiracy Central



Message

cow451 -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/8/2008 3:34:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW


Marvin P. Bush, younger brother of the President, and Wirt D. Walker III, the President's cousin, were working for Securacom, the company that installed the new security system for the WTC from 1996 - 2000. It is possible that they installed the wiring for the explosives.



Securacom's involvement with the WTC ended in 1998, three years before the attack. I assume you aren't saying that these two men personally wired the WTC, LOL. Wiring for communicatrion systems is one thing. Setting explosive charges on the magnitude required is another.



iSERVEaJEW -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/8/2008 3:46:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
Marvin P. Bush, younger brother of the President, and Wirt D. Walker III, the President's cousin, were working for Securacom, the company that installed the new security system for the WTC from 1996 - 2000. It is possible that they installed the wiring for the explosives.

Securacom's involvement with the WTC ended in 1998, three years before the attack. I assume you aren't saying that these two men personally wired the WTC, LOL. Wiring for communicatrion systems is one thing. Setting explosive charges on the magnitude required is another.

Source?



WesP -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/8/2008 3:53:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
Marvin P. Bush, younger brother of the President, and Wirt D. Walker III, the President's cousin, were working for Securacom, the company that installed the new security system for the WTC from 1996 - 2000. It is possible that they installed the wiring for the explosives.

Securacom's involvement with the WTC ended in 1998, three years before the attack. I assume you aren't saying that these two men personally wired the WTC, LOL. Wiring for communicatrion systems is one thing. Setting explosive charges on the magnitude required is another.

Source?


I know I said I would not post much more, but I thought I would provide this link for you.

ETA: Still correcting lies. [:o]



iSERVEaJEW -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/8/2008 4:18:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesSavedByGrace

quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
Marvin P. Bush, younger brother of the President, and Wirt D. Walker III, the President's cousin, were working for Securacom, the company that installed the new security system for the WTC from 1996 - 2000. It is possible that they installed the wiring for the explosives.

Securacom's involvement with the WTC ended in 1998, three years before the attack.

Source?


I know I said I would not post again, but I thought I would provide this link for you.

Thank you for that article by Margie Burns from 2005. In her 2002 article, she said,

quote:

According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down." Yet instead of being investigated, the company and companies involved with it have benefited from legislation pushed by the Bush White House and rubber-stamped by Congressional Republicans. Stratesec, its backer KuwAm, and their corporate officers stand to benefit from limitations on liability and national-security protections from investigation provided in bills since 9/11.
Secrecy surrounds a Bush brother's role in 9/11 security by Magie Burns, America Reporter, January 20, 2002


The CEO of Securacom/Stratesec said that they handled the security at WTC "up to the day the buildings fell down." Do you refute this reporter's words? Email her if you like:

margie.burns@verizon.net



cow451 -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/8/2008 4:56:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
Marvin P. Bush, younger brother of the President, and Wirt D. Walker III, the President's cousin, were working for Securacom, the company that installed the new security system for the WTC from 1996 - 2000. It is possible that they installed the wiring for the explosives.

Securacom's involvement with the WTC ended in 1998, three years before the attack. I assume you aren't saying that these two men personally wired the WTC, LOL. Wiring for communicatrion systems is one thing. Setting explosive charges on the magnitude required is another.

Source?

LINK



iSERVEaJEW -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/8/2008 5:54:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
Marvin P. Bush, younger brother of the President, and Wirt D. Walker III, the President's cousin, were working for Securacom, the company that installed the new security system for the WTC from 1996 - 2000. It is possible that they installed the wiring for the explosives.

Securacom's involvement with the WTC ended in 1998, three years before the attack. I assume you aren't saying that these two men personally wired the WTC, LOL. Wiring for communicatrion systems is one thing. Setting explosive charges on the magnitude required is another.

Source?

LINK

Your link says,

What is there in this story, then? We see no evidence that Stratesec/ Securacom “ran” or “were in charge of” security at the WTC. They were just a contractor, who did have a major role once, but were replaced by another company in 1998. The only evidence of further contact after that time is a couple of quotes from Barry McDaniel in one article, where he seems to be talking about designing a system that wasn’t yet finished, and nothing as major as managing the security of the complex.

The fact remains that the CEO went on record with a reporter and said that they were involved in security at the WTC during 9/11. And, they certainly had extensive involvement in the security development of those buildings. You said, "How was all that explosive and rigging placed without anybody getting suspicious or somebody spilling the beans? It defies human nature."

It is plausible that people placed the wiring long before the event. We don't know how they placed the explosives. The whole point of that exercise was to demonstrate that the Bush family had ties to WTC security. We can't prove anything so it doesn't matter that they did, but it is just another possible piece of the puzzle.

My favourite topic is WTC7... care to discuss it?



cow451 -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/8/2008 7:09:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW

It is plausible that people placed the wiring long before the event.

No it isn't any more than saying it is plausible that John F. Kennedy is alive and living on the island Skorpios.

quote:

We don't know how they placed the explosives. The whole point of that exercise was to demonstrate that the Bush family had ties to WTC security. We can't prove anything so it doesn't matter that they did, but it is just another possible piece of the puzzle.



"We can't prove anything, so it doesn't matter what they did ......" tells me alot about how you are so easily taken in by the conspiracymeisters.



iSERVEaJEW -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/8/2008 7:23:37 PM)

You're the one who brought up that particular topic. You said that you couldn't understand how people could have placed the explosives. I talked about how people involved in developing and installing the security in those buildings were connected to Bush, who's regime wanted a reason to bring in the patriot act and move one step closer to fascism. That speaks to motive, but it isn't something that is provable. You have doubts that people could have placed explosives undetected and I think that it certainly is possible - especially if the wiring was already done years before.

My turn. I don't understand how WTC7 could collapse, let alone at almost free-fall speed. Please, explain it in a way that makes sense to you.



iSERVEaJEW -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/8/2008 7:25:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW

You're the one who brought up that particular topic. You said that you couldn't understand how people could have placed the explosives. I talked about how people involved in developing and installing the security in those buildings were connected to Bush, who's regime wanted a reason to bring in the patriot act and move one step closer to fascism. That speaks to motive, but it isn't something that is provable. You have doubts that people could have placed explosives undetected and I think that it certainly is possible - especially if the wiring was already done years before.

My turn. I don't understand how WTC7 could collapse from some debris and fire, let alone at almost free-fall speed. Please, explain it in a way that makes sense to you.



cow451 -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/8/2008 10:07:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW

You're the one who brought up that particular topic. You said that you couldn't understand how people could have placed the explosives. I talked about how people involved in developing and installing the security in those buildings were connected to Bush, who's regime wanted a reason to bring in the patriot act and move one step closer to fascism. That speaks to motive, but it isn't something that is provable. You have doubts that people could have placed explosives undetected and I think that it certainly is possible - especially if the wiring was already done years before.

My turn. I don't understand how WTC7 could collapse, let alone at almost free-fall speed. Please, explain it in a way that makes sense to you.

Not so fast, sherlock. You give a lame response and then want to quickly jump somewhere else. How could thousands of pounds of explosives been planted without detection. Do you even know how much explosive would be required to carry out this demolition?



iSERVEaJEW -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/9/2008 6:54:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW

You're the one who brought up that particular topic. You said that you couldn't understand how people could have placed the explosives. I talked about how people involved in developing and installing the security in those buildings were connected to Bush, who's regime wanted a reason to bring in the patriot act and move one step closer to fascism. That speaks to motive, but it isn't something that is provable. You have doubts that people could have placed explosives undetected and I think that it certainly is possible - especially if the wiring was already done years before.

My turn. I don't understand how WTC7 could collapse, let alone at almost free-fall speed. Please, explain it in a way that makes sense to you.

Not so fast, sherlock. You give a lame response and then want to quickly jump somewhere else. How could thousands of pounds of explosives been planted without detection. Do you even know how much explosive would be required to carry out this demolition?

Sorry, but it's not my job to convince you. I just say what I think and you say what you think and then perhaps one, or both, of us will learn something.

Who is to say that people didn't find out? Perhaps some did and they were killed? We don't know. If it is true that very bad people committed mass murder and terror, then I'm sure they're sophisticated and are able to sneak explosives into a building and install them.

This is absolutely the WRONG way to approach the events of that day, for this is all very subjective. I'm interested in dealing with facts like how WTC7 came down. The only reason we went down this silly path is because I decided to answer your question about how I thought they could plant the explosives.

You asked about how much explosive would be required for the demolition? Here is a short clip with from Dutch TV where Danny Jowenko, a Dutch demolitions expert, was interviewed. He talks about how the building might be demolished:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2E65WTxd1U

Here is a telephone conversation with Danny Jowenko, a Dutch demolitions expert. He confirms that he hasn't retracted his opinion and says that it isn't surprising that American demolition experts are sticking to the FEMA report since their business will suffer if they say what they really think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4

Since we're on the topic, here is a link to a lecture given by Architect Richard Gage, "How the Towers Fell":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW6Oez7pag0&feature=related



draexo -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/9/2008 7:06:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW

Are you guys afraid to have a serious conversation about this, or are you just going to make garbage posts and blow it off with an air of superiority? If you don't agree have the decency to say why or respectfully stay away please. Shalom.

Of course 9/11 was an inside job. Anyone who looks at the facts objectively could not conclude otherwise.
However.... on this forum, others, including myself, have argued this and failed to convince anyone.
Backpacker and Redstone both eventually were kicked off these forums for their beliefs on 9/11.

I will state something here and it is true - no one on these forums wants to believe their "Christian" President was involved in 9/11. No one on these forums wants to believe that the shadow world government was responsible. Rescue workers at the Twin Towers had to replace their boots because the soles melted from the heat of the rubble pile. How did it get so hot in that pile of rubble? Well, thermate, the explosive most likely used to take down the towers generates A LOT of heat.
Then there is the whole flight 93 cell phone call thing, the Pentagon thing (with all the missing money) - the list goes on.
Norman Minetta - go look him up on you tube or google his name. He was the US Transportation Dept Secretary who sat with Cheney as the plane (if that is what it was) came into the Pentagon and Cheney refused to have it taken down.

Sorry to ramble on and on. These same people on these forums who refuse to believe the Truth about 9/11, believe Jesus will return - so they have the capicity to believe things outside the norm of reality - they just are blind.



iSERVEaJEW -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/9/2008 7:18:00 AM)

Thanks for adding to this conversation. :)

Do you think it is a good idea to focus on how WTC7 came down? I think that is the best way to help those who don't understand this issue. I'm watching a lecture that was given at the University of Manitoba by an Architect right now. Have you seen it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW6Oez7pag0&feature=related



draexo -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/9/2008 8:05:52 AM)

I have gone through this time and time again. I have passed out countless video DVD's to friends and co-workers. (Ok maybe not countless, but you get the idea). I have dissected Bush's 'Christian Cowboy' image and found it to be a persona constructed to win votes.

Why was the plane allowed to hit the Pentagon? Why that particular section? Where are the engines from this plane? The engine parts they showed were clearly not from a large jetliner. How does the concrete on two 110 story buildings turn to dust as it collapses - and how do they collapse at free-fall speed? Simple - they were demolished.

If it was so easy to hit the Pentagon, the Cold War would have ended in the 50's and we would all be speaking Russian now.



iSERVEaJEW -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/9/2008 8:35:44 AM)

cow451 - You asked how they could have planted the explosives? Here is a specific clip that addresses the access people had to the central support columns in the World Trade Center. Go to 04:18/09:59 of the clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRo5V_YYjFA&feature=related

Basically, the supports were accessible from the elevator shafts and there was work going on in the nine months before the demolition. There was access to these vital building supports.



blessedinnyc -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/9/2008 9:26:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW

You're the one who brought up that particular topic. You said that you couldn't understand how people could have placed the explosives. I talked about how people involved in developing and installing the security in those buildings were connected to Bush, who's regime wanted a reason to bring in the patriot act and move one step closer to fascism. That speaks to motive, but it isn't something that is provable. You have doubts that people could have placed explosives undetected and I think that it certainly is possible - especially if the wiring was already done years before.

My turn. I don't understand how WTC7 could collapse, let alone at almost free-fall speed. Please, explain it in a way that makes sense to you.

It's actually very simple.

All of the support for the WTC was located in the inner core of the building- around the elevator shafts. There was no support throughout the rest of the building, which allowed for more office space.

New York City fire safety codes actually required the support to be dispersed throughout the building, but as the Port Authority was a government agency, it wasn't required to do this.

When these supports on the inside of the building failed, there was really nothing left to do except for the building to come crashing down.

Also, if the Port Authority had built concrete-reinforced stairwells, it's likely that more people would have been able to evacuate the building.

There was a cover-up here, but it wasn't done by the Bush Administration. It was done by the Port Authority. They built a dangerous building, and didn't want to worry about lawsuits in the aftermath.



NumberOneSon -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/9/2008 10:09:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: draexo]Of course 9/11 was an inside job. Anyone who looks at the facts objectively could not conclude otherwise.

There are convincing arguments on both sides of the issue, so I think it’s a little ridiculous to conclude that the only reasonable conclusion is the conspiratorial conclusion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: draexo]Backpacker and Redstone both eventually were kicked off these forums for their beliefs on 9/11.

When were they banned? And were they were banned because of their beliefs on 9/11? Is that accurate?

quote:

ORIGINAL: draexo]I will state something here and it is true - no one on these forums wants to believe their "Christian" President was involved in 9/11.

Not true. It’s not that we don’t want to believe our President was involved; we just don’t believe the evidence is compelling enough. If the evidence were compelling enough, I’d have no problem condemning the Bush for his involvement, regardless of his religious affiliation. I for one am pretty fed up with the current administration even though I voted for Bush in both elections, so I have no desire to defend the man. I'm looking forward to him leaving office.

quote:

ORIGINAL: draexo]No one on these forums wants to believe that the shadow world government was responsible.

We don’t believe because many of the people who foster the “shadow government” theories are pseudo-researchers, liars, and laymen who generally have no business passing themselves off as experts in the fields of history and the occult. People like Alex Jones, Texe Marrs, Jordan Maxwell, and the like.

NumberOneSon



cow451 -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/9/2008 10:23:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NumberOneSon

quote:

ORIGINAL: draexo]No one on these forums wants to believe that the shadow world government was responsible.

We don’t believe because many of the people who foster the “shadow government” theories are pseudo-researchers, liars, and laymen who generally have no business passing themselves off as experts in the fields of history and the occult. People like Alex Jones, Texe Marrs, Jordan Maxwell, and the like.

NumberOneSon


I learned from the JFK conspiracy era that some people make careers out of these theories. 9/11 is this generation's conspiracy nut favorite topic. The alien/Roswell/UFO crowd is a constant group. Then you have the One World Gov't/Freemason/Illuminati/CFR crowd. I generally lump them all under the Aluminum Hat label. The great thing about paranoia is that there are some truths in the mix, but the half-truths, lies and distortions overrun them. Unfortunately reality is a lot more boring than the conspiracy folks can tolerate. Everytime I've followed 9/11 allegations, it is a series of facts mixed in with unprovable fantasies leading to illogical conclusions.

The reason I don't do Youtube "evidence" is that the real information comes from poring over long, tedious research and paper trails. I learned from journalism experience that video bits and sound bites are too easily manipulated. Relying on You Tube evidence is the lazy guys way to "research". Sorry if I stepped on any toes ............ well, not really.



rabstark -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/9/2008 11:49:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NumberOneSon

quote:

ORIGINAL: draexo]Backpacker and Redstone both eventually were kicked off these forums for their beliefs on 9/11.

When were they banned? And were they were banned because of their beliefs on 9/11? Is that accurate?



They were never banned. People got tired of trying to answer them and getting nothing but nonsense, abuse, and insulting accusations of either being "blind" or stupid in response. Backpacker, Redstone and most of the other invaders left entirely of their own volition because their audience dried up.



iSERVEaJEW -> Where are the pancakes? (4/9/2008 12:00:04 PM)

If memory serves, there were about 100 floors in the WTC buildings. If they "pancaked", then were were the pancakes?



lightshineon -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/9/2008 12:04:04 PM)

I do not believe 9-11 was an inside job. Everytime something happens people try and find something to make it more than something it is. I live in the state of Oklahoma, in 1995, our Federal Building was blown-up, by domestic terrorism. Some had a theory, that it was an inside job. The televison show 20\20 even had a docu-drama show dealing with the bombing being an inside job. All kinds of finger pointing going on. President Clinton was President at the time 1995, so I am wondering, how everyone thinks, things cannot be just what they are. Cowards, who terrorize people, killing people for evil political agendas. Lauden was planning this for years, and years. I have watched and studied this, and many facts back up that it was an evil act of terror. What about the shoe bomber, what about the people still trying to board planes with chemicals to do us harm? i hope this makes more sense, eye nfection and cannot see very well. sorry.



uncabeeil -> RE: Was 9/11 an inside job? (4/9/2008 1:11:01 PM)

Let me save you a whole lot of time. I know the answer, the only answer, the one true answer. And that is:

The butler did it!


There, now everybody can make nice; the truth is out.



cow451 -> RE: Where are the pancakes? (4/9/2008 1:56:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW

If memory serves, there were about 100 floors in the WTC buildings. If they "pancaked", then were were the pancakes?

The NIST report does not support the "pancake" theory (nor does it support the waffle or blueberry muffin theory). The NIST report determined that a bowing inward took place due to the mutifloor fires. That's why you can't find any pancakes. LINK. Note Item 2 for discussion.



WesP -> RE: Where are the pancakes? (4/9/2008 2:08:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW

If memory serves, there were about 100 floors in the WTC buildings. If they "pancaked", then were were the pancakes?

The NIST report does not support the "pancake" theory (nor does it support the waffle or blueberry muffin theory). The NIST report determined that a bowing inward took place due to the mutifloor fires. That's why you can't find any pancakes. LINK. Note Item 2 for discussion.


Not to be rude, but I found the pancakes! [sm=chef.gif]



iSERVEaJEW -> RE: Where are the pancakes? (4/9/2008 2:23:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
If memory serves, there were about 100 floors in the WTC buildings. If they "pancaked", then were were the pancakes?

The NIST report does not support the "pancake" theory (nor does it support the waffle or blueberry muffin theory). The NIST report determined that a bowing inward took place due to the mutifloor fires. That's why you can't find any pancakes. LINK. Note Item 2 for discussion.

Very good. Now that we've demonstrated that the authorities "changed their minds" we can proceed. But first, I would like to emphasise that people were pushing the pancake theory until NIST came along in 2005 and came up with another fanciful idea.

Why do you think that the FEMA report would support the pancake theory in the first place? Why do you think that so many Americans bought into that theory? Is it because they're sheep and they believe what the government tells them to believe?

Why do so many Americans blindly follow their leaders? I know that I blindly followed my government's involvement in the Afghanistan war until I came to realise the lies behind it. Why did it take me so long to wake up? I used to be a soldier, so I had a strong patriotic ideal that I wouldn't even seriously listen to things (like these 9/11 theories) that challenged the popular story.

Here are some paragraphs that discuss the switcheroo:

quote:

The truss failure theory, a key ingredient of the better known floor pancake theory, was endorsed by FEMA in its 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study . It invites us to imagine the floors assemblies detaching from their connections to the columns of the core and perimeter walls, precipitating a chain reaction of floors falling on one another. Without the lateral support of the floors, the columns, FEMA tells us, buckled and precipitated total building collapse.

The truss-failure/pancake theory offered a way around the obvious problem with the column failure theory: the need for all the columns to be heated to 800º C. It offered instead prerequisite conditions that were far less implausible: that trusses holding up the floor slabs were heated to that temperature, and began to experience some combination of expansion and sagging. Floor trusses are much easier to heat because, unlike the columns, they are not well thermally coupled to the rest of the steel structure.

The Truss Failure Theory was was abandoned by NIST's investigation in 2004 because NIST was unable to get floor assemblies to fail as required by the theory. Documentaries that had promoted the truss failure theory became obsolete, and were quietly replaced with updated versions.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/trusses.html



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI