How Demolition Charges Were Placed in WTC 1 AND 2: A Hypothesis

[Magda Hassan]

Bill does not support the Warren Commission version of JFK's assassination.

[James Lewis]

Magda, I was being somewhat facetious with that statement.

Bill does not support the Warren Commission version of JFK's assassination.

[Bill Kelly]

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?

And of course, you are an ardent supporter of Anthony Summers, whose conclusions are, shall we say, spurious at best, and active disinformation at worst. Get a clue, man. Gordon Liddy, a man who I'm no supporter of at all, put it best when, in one of his books, he said "Just because ten thousand people tell you that a horse is a dog, that doesn't make a horse a dog". If you want to keep promoting this utter Commission-based nonsense, please do. But at least try to refrain from insulting the intelligence of the people on this site who actually have a brain, and use that brain for purposes other than being a lapdog for the shadow government.

If you'll refer to my post "Of Fables, Foibles, and Deception", I think you'll find that you fit everything described in that post to a T. Study the facts before you attack the people who've already done that. And remember...how many lies must you believe before you belong to the lie? Saying that those buildings didn't come down through the use of demolition, when every piece of available evidence states otherwise, is tantamount to saying that JFK shot himself on November 22, 1963, and we all didn't see what we saw on the Zapruder film.

So those who believe in a controlled demolition at WTC want us to believe that they were set without anyone knowing they were there, and placed by people who we will never know who they are and were coordinated with the hijacking of the planes but weren't connected with the hijackings because they were foreign covert agents and those responsible for the controlled demos were domestic conspirators.

In addition, we are to believe that we will never be able to know the truth and its too confusing to figure out except to blame Bush.

Please make you case for controlled demo without using the same discredited witnesses and so called evidence that has already been discarded by every reasonable analysis.

I believe that we can and have figured out the covert operations that took place on 9/11, just as we have figured out what happened at Dealey Plaza, though some insist on confusing the issues that distract from what really happened, and ignore the most significant issues.

I attended all of the public hearings of the 9/11 Commission, read and critiqued their report, and know and trust the judgement of Tony and Robbyn Summers who patiently listened to each and every one of the possible scenarios and came to the conclusions that there's no merit to any other than the one they profess, which also contradicts the official scenario in may ways.

You and Prof. Fetzer and others can continue to promote the controlled demo ideas and no planes - though the body parts of those who died have been identified, and your theories are rightfully relegated to the radical fringe element that doesn't deserve arguing with - since you can't make a convincing case.

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.

[Gary Severson]

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.

[James Lewis]

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.

[Bill Kelly]

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.

[Kyle Burnett]

...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.

[James Lewis]

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.