Aww, that's okay journey-on, I hope I explained myself better in my reply to Shelby.
Are you sick of conspiracy nuts?.....9/11
by Witness 007 220 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
AGuest
I didn't have the courage to say it to Leolaia. She does have a reputation, you know.
As brilliant and thorough as she did, dear JO (the greatest of love and peace to you!), dear Leolaia (peace to you, as well!) is as sweet and sincere as they come. I have never seen her mind someone challenging her assertions... so long as they are somewhat respectful in doing so... and the challenge isn't utterly, well, stoopid - LOLOLOL! I mean, if there's anything to fear, it's insulting her intelligence... which I totally get! Otherwise, she always seems ready and willing to explain/clarify, if called upon to do so. So, I personally see absolutely nothing to fear with her (wink, wink - LOL!), but have a lot of respect for her.
I hope I explained myself better in my reply to Shelby.
You absolutely did, my dear, as usual. Thank you!
Peace to you, both!
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
-
Leolaia
Thanks Shelby, your kindness comes through very well in your posts.
JeffT, they needed the planes to cover up the explosions! They weren't counting on people to fall for that did they?
NomadSoul....This reminds me of another "WTF?" matter with WTC controlled demolition theories. The collapses of both WTC2 and WTC1 are both observed as initiated at the impact floors of the towers. So that's where all those explosives were planted (invisibly, kind of like Jesus' presence I suppose) in order to get the collapse started (not ruling out the possibility that explosives were installed further down the building to keep the top-down demolition going). The woogled copypasta that PS furnished on p. 7 in fact says:
"To achieve that kind of symmetry requires careful planning and weeks of preparation where you drill into the columns of the building and plant explosives which are all wired up to a rather complex control board. The detonation sequence also needs to be meticulously calculated so that the 24 inner columns are shattered just moments before the 57 outer columns in order to make sure the building falls into itself rather than 'peeling away' and expanding its outer walls as it falls."
Leaving aside the important issue of how all this preparation was done in occupied business offices invisibly, and also ignoring the fact that outer perimeter sections DID peel away and fall outside the footprint onto nearby buildings, we seem to have two huge problems. One, it was pretty darn lucky for the planes to hit exactly the right floors where the demolition was wired to commence. But hey, we can chalk that up to remote-controlled autopilot or whatever (conspiracy theories are pretty pliable and can incorporate whatever fantasy elements are needed to accommodate perceived flaws). But what I don't get is how the explosives/thermate/demolition agent du jour survived unscathed from a plane crash that obliterated a portion of several floors, knocked out perimeter and core columns, and consumed whatever was around in a gigantic fireball. In the case of UA175, the blast and airplane debris primarily exited the east side of the building — the same side where the collapse initiated. Amazing that all that complex wiring and detcord and HIGH EXPLOSIVES didn't go off!! Kind of boggles the mind why the collapses didn't get triggered by the plane crashes themselves. I'm not saying that one imaginative enough couldn't come up with something to explain this weird fact....I probably just lack imagination.
-
Leolaia
You mean like the First Interstate Tower in LA? Five floors burned to a crisp. It was repaired and life goes on....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Interstate_Tower_fireHowever:
"In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans."
http://web.archive.org/web/20030621000237/http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html
Sounds pretty salvagable. Whereas in the case of WTC1, at 8:46am before the fires had even got going, the crash of AA11 had already severed about 33 of WTC1's 240 perimeter columns on the north side of the building. Then by 10:25am, at least 36 more columns (and probably 56 in all) on the south side of the building spanning 7 floors were severely compromised with up to 4 feet of inward bowing. That's almost a third of the 240 columns in all. And even if the building hadn't collapsed at 10:28am, there was no way to fight the fires. There were enough office contents to keep the fires going for a long time, potentially compromising more and more columns across further floors.
-
JWdaughter
AGuest, the only reason I was compelled to correct you was that there is a huge difference between Shia and Sunni, and I didn't know how much that impacted your theory generally, as you were making correlations between the religions of the various nations in the region.
Just to correct some terminology, women in Saudi usually wear abayas, which are the long black/or other color robes. They usually cover their hair. However, the legal requirement in KSA is to dress modestly, and women are seen in most urban parts of the country w/o scarves, other than riyaad, which is very conservative, as well as, I would assume Makkah and Medina, which are the holy cities and closed to non muslims.
One thing you need to realize is that KSA is Wahabbi like America is Christian-which is to say there are Wahabbi's and there are Wahabbis. And you are right, Salafi is the preferred term-Wahabbi is the name of a man, and Muslims do not want to be followers of men in any way or glorify them. This is much of the core and root of the issue between Sunni and Shia, as Shia are very prone towards sanctifying certain descendants of Muhammed and build shrines to them. Some of their holidays are in fact giving honor to these other men to a degree that most of Islam would recoil from it-traditionally, it involves self mutilation with razors and knives, flaggelation, etc. KSA is a Sunni country, and it doesn't promote or allow other religions-Shia is not considered as Muslim when it goes beyond the borders of accepted practice according to the Quran-pilgrimage to Makkah is accepted. The near worship of descendants of Muhammed is considered forbidden. Mutilation is even forbidden by Shia fatwa, but the practice is widespread.
Women in KSA are not required to cover their faces, and in fact, it is NOT ALLOWED for them to do so at the most holy places of all to them, Makkah and Medina. Burkahs are more of a Afghani thing, I think, perhaps some in Pakistan. There is a mix of shia and sunni in Afghanistan and Pakistan-I couldn't even tell you which wear burkahs. They can both be conservative or liberal-depending on whose standards you are going by. Standards of modesty and correct behavior vary regionally. They are very diverse countries.
Iran used to be very westernized and made a sharp turn back to traditional ways when forced by a conservative element who took over. They arent Arab, but I will be interested to see what transpires there since I am very physically close to that action. Bahrain has a lot of Iranian Shia, so pay attention!
-
Leolaia
By the way, did you know about the WTC's billion dollar asbestos problem, and that the Port Authority was trying to get permission to implode them for years but they were refused because they were just too damn big?
Source?
Your claim is highly dubious.
1) Somehow it just doesn't seem like the right way to get rid of many acres of asbestos is to aerosolize it in dust clouds and distribute it over Lower Manhattan. [1]
2) Strange that the PA would try to get permission to implode the buildings (destroying city landmarks and multi-billion dollar properties — as well as decimating important firms occupying the towers — saves the city more money than $1 billion of asbestos removal?) when the city codes outright ban building implosions in NYC:
"Though implosion can be practiced with delicacy and exactitude, the New York City building code has forbidden it for many years, according to Paul Wein, a spokesman for the Department of Buildings... Not surprisingly, it is the city's creaky infrastructure — its subterranean water mains, gas and steam lines, and telephone and electrical cables — and the density of its buildings and streets that render the use of explosives impractical, if not ruinous, Mr. Wein said" (New York Times, 28 May 2000 [2]).
Hmm, how about PATH and subway lines underneath the WTC complex and the slurry wall holding back the freaking Hudson River? Surely expendable for asbestos removal. ;)
What's the answer? Sell them to Larry Silverstein..... a man with a plan!
Ah, yes, back to Silverstein as the evil, evil man responsible for the deaths of thousands. He admitted it on national television! Right? Don't forget that the FDNY was "in on it" too! Yeah, the FDNY must be equally guilty of mass murder; bet they'd love you to inform them of that. The odd thing about that though....since when did firemen get in the business of demolishing buildings with explosives?
-
bohm
Notice that today the WTC was brought down by many controlled charges and high-energy weapons which turn steel into dust.
The other day it was a nuke, which "burned cars for miles away"
Isnt it a bit funny to first rig the WTC full of explosives, then use a high-energy weapon out of star-trek on the remains?
PSON does not even attempt to be critical to his own explanation to the point of making sure it does not contain obvious contradictions. In his world, it is about one thing only: the official story must be wrong. all arguments against it must be good.
that are not symptoms of healthy thinking.
-
Leolaia
I'm gonna do a copypasta of my own:
The White House Tapes
Well, Mr President, I think I've come up with the causus belli you wanted. Let's trick the public into thinking that terrorists have flown planes into the Twin Towers.
Great! That'll get the public on our side!
No it won't.
It won't?
No, we did a poll. Apparently the public won't be willing to go to war unless the towers ... 'scuse me, I have this in my notes ... ah yes ... unless the towers "collapse symmetrically into their footprint at near free-fall speeds".
What does that even mean?
We don't know for sure, but we've got the guys at NIST working round the clock to find out.
Okay, so let me get this straight. We hijack the planes, we crash them into the Twin Towers ...
No we don't.
We don't?
We want the public to think that planes have hit the towers. I don't see how planes actually hitting the towers would give them that impression. No, we'll use holograms or missiles disguised as planes or something.
OK, I'm getting the picture now. So, we hijack the planes, we hide them somewhere, we project holograms of planes hitting the towers, we do this "symmetrical collapse" thingy --- how do we do that, by the way?
There are several options. Some people say that we should use some sort of death-ray, but me, I want to use good old-fashioned explosives.
What's wrong with the death-ray?
It doesn't exist. So, I suggest that we inconspicuously wire the buildings with high explosives ...
Inconspicuously?
Yeah. It's OK, I asked Silverstein's permission.
You ... you asked his permission?
I thought it was only polite. Actually, he was very enthusiastic. He says can he personally give the order to blow up WTC 7, he thinks it's ugly.
Sure, why not? Heck, he can have the architect whacked too for all I care.
And he wants to brag about his role in the conspiracy on television.
No problem ... oh, hang on, remind me. The planes are meant to hit WTC 1 and 2, yeah? Why are we blowing up WTC 7?
We did a survey asking people whether the total destruction of two world-famous skyscrapers 110 storeys tall would impress them any, and 57% replied "Not unless a 47-storey building I've never heard of collapses at about the same time".
Fine, democracy is about giving the people what they want. So, to recap: we plant explosives in the Twin Towers, WTC 7, and any other structure that Larry Silverstein has a grudge against, we hijack some planes, we hide them, we project a hologram of the planes hitting the towers, Larry blows up the towers, he might need some firemen to help him, make a note of it ... and then we pin the blame on the Iraqis. Yes?
No, we blame a bunch of Saudis.
Geopolitics always gets me confused. Why do we blame the Saudis?
Well you see ...
[At this point, the tape becomes completely inaudible for about thirty seconds.]
Oh I see! Well, if that don't beat all for cunning. So, we plant the explosives, we hijack the planes, we hide them, we make with the holograms, Larry Silverstein blows up the towers, we pin the blame on some Saudis ... and then we invade Iraq?
No, then we invade Afghanistan.This one is even funnier though:
9/11 Conspiracy Planning Sessions
POTUS: So, thus far we have decided fly an airliner into each of the WTC towers, after which we will have them collapse using an incendiary which has never been used in demolitions before. Is there anything else we need to do?
VPOTUS: Yes, we need to strike something else otherwise the sheeple will never believe that it was a terrorist strike.
NSA: What? Why the hell not? After the second plane hits, everyone will think that it was a terrorist attack. Why make the plan even more complicated?
VPOTUS: Shut up, Condi, this is man talk. We know what we are doing.
SECDEF: I've got one! Why don't we fly a plane into the Pentagon? It is one of the most important and recognizable structures in the world. Plus, it is the headquarters of the military. I even work there myself. Nobody would believe that we actually did that.
POTUS: That sounds great, Rummy! That is why my dad made me appoint you SECDEF.
VPOTUS: It is pretty good. I've got an ever better one. Why don't we just pretend that a plane hit the Pentagon? We can fly a plane painted to look like a commercial airliner straight towards the Pentagon and pull up and then over it at the last second. We will then have bombs explode at exactly the right moment causing a bunch of damage. The fireball will also disguise the flyover.
NSA. Dick, that doesn't makes any sense. Why don't we just fly a plane into the Pentagon like we're doing at the WTC? That way we can ensure that eyewitnesses report that a plane flew into the Pentagon. We also don't have to worry about planting evidence.
SECDEF: Condi, you're just a woman, you don't understand how things work in the real world. The flyover idea is a great one, I wish I came up with it myself. It will be very easy to convince eyewitnesses into believing a plane hit the Pentagon using some sort of magic trick. And you forget, we are all powerful, it will be easy to plant physical evidence that fits the story of a plane hitting the Pentagon. We even have a deep cover cab driver that we can use.
NSA: I am sorry, I still don't understand why it wouldn't be easier just crash the airplane into the Pentagon.
VPOTUS: Come on, don't you know the first rule of covert conspiracies? The more complicated and convoluted, the better. Plus, we don't have the budget to destroy another plane after crashing the two into the WTC, plus buying all that thermite.
NSA: Come on, that is crazy. What do you think, Mr. President?
POTUS: Well Condi, I don't know. You make some good points. But so do Dick and Rummy. I just can't make up my mind. Maybe I should call my Dad and ask him.
POTUS' Father: Hello?
POTUS: Daddy, it is Junior. I have a question for you.
POTUS' Father: Yes, what is it?
POTUS: Well, you know that false flag terror operation that we are running in September?
POTUS' Father: Yes, what about it?
POTUS: Well, after we fly the planes into the WTC, we want to hit the Pentagon also to make the whole thing look more believable.
POTUS' Father: That that sounds like a good idea, Junior.
POTUS. Well, Dick and Rummy think that it is a good idea to fake the whole thing. They want to have a plane fly towards the Pentagon and then fly up and over it at the last second. The plan is to fool all the eyewitnesses using a magic trick and then fake all the physical evidence. Condi think that it would be a better idea to just fly a plane into the Pentagon.
Former POTUS: Junior, what did I tell you after I got you appointed to this office? Listen to whatever Dick and Rummy tell you to do. They know what they are doing. Who cares what Condi says, she is just a woman.
POTUS: OK, thank you Daddy.
POTUS: Alright folks, you all heard what my daddy said. We are going to fake the Pentagon plane crash. Condi, I don't want to ever again hear about how this is a bad idea. As a reward, you can have Colin's position after we make him resign. Understood, everyone?
NSA: Yes, Mr. President.
VPOTUS: Yes, Mr President.
SECDEF: Yes, Mr President.
POTUS: Alright, lets get to work, we have to figure out how we are going to pull off this magic trick and plant all the physical evidence. -
JWdaughter
Anyone else wonder why it took so much money and planning to do the 9-11 thing? Seriously, it was a few plane tickes and box knives? This was the great master plan, given by OBL that required millions of dollars? I think they waste money like the government does. And you all should be comforted-
There are tons of places to get training to fly airplanes in the middle east. I live next to one. There are thousands of Muslim men and wowho are capable of doing what the terrorists did on 9-11. The fact is, there are not many Muslims that would ever in a million years, be willing to do such a thing. Not because they are cowards, because many would defend their beliefs and family and fellow Muslims. They do not believe that what happened was remotely Islamic. It was flat out wrong and they would not support that. There are over a billion Muslims and I believe they did not find one single airline pilot (already trained and there are plenty of them, I meet them every day living near an airport and in a building of flats with about a dozen Muslim pilots) that was willing to do this. They had to send out men who had no training and train them from scratch.
Sorry, I got off topic on the sunni/shia muslim thing. There were without arguement, several muslims-about 20, certainly that apparently were involved with the plot. What do the conspiracy theorists have to say about the men and OBL's claim that he planned it? I know that some Muslims are in denial as to even OBL really having had a hand in it, but I think they are simply so appalled by the entire thing that they cannot reconcile themselves to the entire scheme being muslim at all.
-
ProdigalSon
If it wasn't too obvious -- a remnant of the core of WTC1 can be seen standing for some seconds after the collapse of the floors and perimeter columns (just as was the case with WTC2), then can be seen leaning, and then itself collapses, leaving a trail of dust from the core (containing gympsum planks and concrete stairwells) behind.
I watched the video at least a dozen times, and I don't see that it "collapses, leaving a trail of dust from the core". I see it turning to dust, period. Then, the dust very slowly started dropping downward while it dissipated like anything else slightly heavier than air. But hey Leo, that's what you see, and that's what I see, and everyone can make their own judgment.
I already have stated that there is no way that conventional explosives ALONE were used on the main towers. The experts agree with this. There is postulation on what was used, from mini nukes to ULF electromagnetic waves in combination with conventional explosives. The average person like myself simply cannot know. But those of us with eyes to see know that the collapse of both towers differed greatly from building 7. Anybody that thinks that the public is privy to ALL the weapons the Pentagon has in its possession is living in la-la land.
As for the "few floors", well, yes, it was more than a few floors on the south tower, but the north tower was hit higher up, leaving only 15 or so floors that did all that pulverizing. I simply refuse to swallow this garbage that a small section like that can pulverize 95 floors of steel with a massive core that held up ALL of the building's weight. If the upper section had been dropped from 10,000 feet into the dead center of the tower it STILL wouldn't have produced the effect you saw. You're trying to tell us that the momentum gained from 10 or 20 feet of vertical drop was enough to methodically deconstruct the towers from the top down at near free fall speed. ANd there was not just ONE of these miracles that day, there were THREE!! And that's just at the WTC. There were numerous other miracles (suspensions of the laws of physics) in Washington and Pennsylvania. Sorry, but I'm not buying it and anybody who does is an idiot. Those buildings could have stood without the outside walls because they were designed that way to eliminate columns that would interrupt floor space. They could have been hit by a FLEET of 757's and they would still be standing if it weren't for the explosives, nukes, ULF's or whatever they were.