![]() |
|
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Printable Version +- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora) +-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html) +--- Forum: 911 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-6.html) +--- Thread: How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis (/thread-7287.html) |
How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Magda Hassan - 17-08-2011 Bill does not support the Warren Commission version of JFK's assassination. How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - James Lewis - 17-08-2011 Magda, I was being somewhat facetious with that statement. Magda Hassan Wrote:Bill does not support the Warren Commission version of JFK's assassination. How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Bill Kelly - 17-08-2011 James Lewis Wrote:Ah, so now we know exactly why you're promoting this nonsense...you were at the Commission hearings, huh? Why am I not surprised? I would like for you, sir, to tell me exactly which witness you consider "discredited". Certainly not William Rodriguez, whose testimony was sealed, right? Certainly not the firefighters who swear to this day that they heard bombs going off as the Towers came down, right? I'm not attacking anybody, I'm asking you to persuade me that there were bombs planted and a controlled demolition took place, and those who claim to have heard explosions aren't enough. Yes, I and others who don't believe the WTC were brought down by controlled demos fit your definition to a T. - those rational, reasonable people who have taken the time to listen to all the testimony and everything you have to say and still don't buy it. You are the one trying to sell the false story that doesn't lead anywhere. Active disinformation stems from a government intelligence operation and designed to disguise the truth - so what government intelligence agency are Tony and Robbyn working for? You on the other hand, are attempting to promote a theory that doesn't lead to those who committed any crime or conspiracy other than what's in your own mind. I think that crimes that are committed by human beings like the JFK Assassination and 9/11 can be and are being solved by other reasonable and rational humans, while you promote the idea that it was crime that was beyond understanding and will never be understood because of your silly theories about bombs being placed and missiles being fired by unknown subjects. We know what happened at Dealey Plaza and we know pretty much what happened at the WTC and Pentagon and in W. Pa. and those who want to detract from that truth can do so. Fire away, as I won't bother to argue with you. You can believe what you want. I just want you to know that I did pay attention to you and many others who have made similar arguments, and I am simply not persuaded. How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Gary Severson - 17-08-2011 James, have you read the Summer's book? Bill doesn't dismiss the conspiracy involved in 9/11 because Summers leaves open the theory that the government's involvement incl. the "let it happen" scenario. I don't mean to speak for Bill but I think that is what he is suggesting. How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - James Lewis - 17-08-2011 Well, William, I am not going to try to persuade you about anything, because if the sight of two 110-story buildings falling at free-fall velocities, in their own footprints, doesn't persuade you, along with the incontrovertible evidence that buildings of almost identical build have burnt much longer, at much higher temperatures, yet have not collapsed, then nothing will. Oh yes, I almost forgot about the elephant in the room - 7 World Trade Center, which came down identically, yet wasn't hit by a plane, and whose fires burnt at much lower intensity. You may want to deny the obvious, but I'm obviously not that kind of guy. How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Bill Kelly - 17-08-2011 Gary Severson Wrote:James, have you read the Summer's book? Bill doesn't dismiss the conspiracy involved in 9/11 because Summers leaves open the theory that the government's involvement incl. the "let it happen" scenario. I don't mean to speak for Bill but I think that is what he is suggesting. Thank you for adding a touch of reason Gary, as I too recognize that 9/11 was indeed a conspiracy and covert operation and one that can and will be figured out in its entirety, and the real issues it presents properly reviewed and discussed. But I don't think James is going to read Summers' book because he already knows what happened. How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - Kyle Burnett - 17-08-2011 William Kelly Wrote:...persuade me that there were bombs planted and a controlled demolition took place...The first step in that would be to dispel you of whatever has you convinced that the impact damage and fires were capable of making the buildings come down as they did. So, would you please specify whatever you believe best substantiates that notion for either the towers or WTC 7? I'll be happy to discuss both in the long run, but figure it best to focus discussion on one at a time. How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis - James Lewis - 17-08-2011 The point I'm trying to make is this: If the buildings didn't come down from impact and heat - as the government's official position states - then the whole of their position is invalid on its face. It's the same principle as the Magic Bullet - once that theory is disproven, then the whole house of cards comes down. And as Kyle states, please find us some reputable scientific evidence that the buildings came down the way they did without the assistance of explosives. We'd be quite eager to hear it. |