Look I have never been a 9-11 buff. I do not believe that Bush planned it or knew about it in advance. But I do have some genuine questions about Alqaida and building 7. Now there are witnesses who claimed they heard explosions..ok maybe they did or maybe they did not. But I must admit the collapse of building 7 looks like it could be a controlled demolition....just saying. Just look at the videos of other controlled implosions vs a building collapse and decide for yourself. Because if it was structural damage then why did it fall like that? It was never hit by anything and how how come no other buildings near it collapsed also? Can someone find me footage of collapses that mimic building 7. Then if it was a controlled demolition then that means that the explosives were placed there in advance which gives the 9-11 people conspiracy ammo. Check out the videos below. Also if Alqaida was blamed for 9-11 how come Osama and Al-qaida are not charged by the justice dept for the 9-11 crime.It's been nine years. They claim indictments for 9-11 may come down. check out the FBI website yourself.(Click on the title link) They are charged with everything else under the sun....except 9-11.
Other Collapses.
23 comments:
EG said: "Because if it was structural damage then why did it fall like that? It was never hit by anything and how how come no other buildings near it collapsed also?"
The building was severely damaged by falling heavy debris after the planes impacts; it literaly made #7a three legged chair. You can research quotes from firemen that said they had to move away, i believe pull back was the term, because it was groaning. A triage set up outside # 7 was asked to pull back because the firemen said it was about to come down and yes some heard explosions that appeared to be gaslines and 400 - 650 volt power boxes. Scientific evidence, seismic readings in that area...show ZERO explosions of the magnitude required to bring that building down. You can also read the NIST report. Bottom line
building 7 was damaged badly. Other buildings had fallen, inside building #5...eg. A church got leveled by debris also, but i believe the church got leveled as 1&2 came down.
I would make a lengthy post and show you everything but you may not post it and i would get angry again. BTW i still think that was fucked up of you. If you truelly want me to answer your questions and show you the evidence at hand i will. If not then so be it. I gave you enough so you can do your own lil research on it.
Check out demolition experts and their opinions on wtc7. BTW they were not demo'ed using explosives, nor thermite. BTW they 9-11 nutjobs switch their story mid debate because they were shown scientific evidence showing no explosions were large enough. So they went with thermite then nano thermite. Hence the goal posts change alot with these nutjobs.
BIGDOG 9-11 researcher and loaded for twoofers.
The most wanted question is a good one but i can accept a reasonable explaination most 9-11 twoofers cant. Even when they are presented with good reasoning.
"The alleged terrorists on this list have been indicted by sitting Federal Grand Juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for the crimes reflected on their wanted posters. Evidence was gathered and presented to the Grand Juries, which led to their being charged. The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm
Usama desciption page click on it.
"The Rewards For Justice Program,
United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden. An additional $2 million is being offered through a program developed and funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association."
Hmmm...how come the airline associations added an adittional 2 million? Can you say 9-11 additional reward? I mean the 1993 wtc attack isnt on there either, the Cole isnt either. How come the twoofers dont mention that. Because it doesnt fit there agenda...YAHTZEE!!
BIGDOG
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-21-2006/headlines---victim-s-apology
You make some good points..Show me the evidence(written of video of the concerning the buildings collapsing. I would love to see that. I am familiar with the three legged damaged argument. I think that could very well be true. But then why does it look like it fell at the rate of gravity? I agree a lot of 9-11 wackos are out there. Also the preceding page you copied and pasted I am familiar with that one as well. Remember they told us they knew for sure it was bin laden and we went after them. Remember that tape that was found
they claimed revealed he was part of the conspiracy. So whats with the delay in indictments(nine years)all an indictment is a charge. So whats the delay. Charge him. Legally you can only charge someone with a crime only when you have sufficient evidence of theior wrong doing....Keep that in mind.
Bigdog, A three legged chair tips over, it doesn't fall straight down. If your agenda was truth then your story would change as you got new information too. But you are proven to lie, distort facts, twist words, and put out misinformation to try and make your case. Winning your little argument seems much more important to you than finding truth. Many of the "9/11 wackos" have the agenda of finding the truth. What's your agenda, ego?
President Bush, having just been told of the second WTC crash, stays in the Booker Elementary School Classroom, and listens as 16 Booker Elementary School second-graders take turns reading “The Pet Goat.”
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_timeline_key_day_of_9_11_events
"That [quality-assurance] manager crushed the cassette in his hand, shredded the tape and dropped the pieces into different trash cans around the building"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/national/06CND-TAPE.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olF0RAI6ETE
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/flight77_path.wmv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911stand.html
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/66090_comment.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3Ca6NF68Dg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6tbX2tlqvg
"Bigdog, A three legged chair tips over, it doesn't fall straight down."
BTW i am telling the truth and my integrity as a man should never be in question. If you question that integrity than why bother asking me anything? Your pretense offends sir. Lets address another pretense.
The above quote is a false assertion without any known paramiters. One known paramiter is scientific evidence of ZERO detonations of anykind with the magnitude required to bring 7 down. Oh and not to mention ZERO evidence of any demolition material was found amongst the rubble. Oh and need i mention the building was on fire and those fires could have easily detonated those explosives prematurelly. But hey who cares about rational thought lets examine bruces statement of fact or what he considers factual. The above mentioned paramiters eleminates any need to explain anything further...but?
"Bigdog, A three legged chair tips over, it doesn't fall straight down."
Fascinating claim so lets address it using rational thinking. How much weight are you talking about here? Did that chair have a degree of pitch to it? ****Meaning any collapse by a building is designed with a pitch to force collapsed inward (larger at the bottom vs smaller at the top).****
The weight of that chair alone indeed may tip it over, yet may still remain upright as well...without any shift or push in that direction of lease resistence, collapse may not happen at all. Maybe thats why they stood as long as they did and should be a testiment to the structual soundness of that building. I know you dont have experience in structual steel and erecting, but i do. Lets just say steel isnt indestructable. Meaning it can be rendered ineffective. By removing one part of its main support can easily render its entire structure integrity compromised. The pitch of that building did what it was suppost to do.
BTW your 9-11 wacko buddies are the ones that twist the truth and change it mid stream when proven to be wrong and/or misinforming the public. Richard Gage has thanked people like me by helping them refine their arguements. So please save your bullshit for the uninformed.
I will address the free fall issue after work.
So, what are you saying EG? Our Government hasnt indicted bin laden because he is innocent? He admitted on Al Jazeera (23 May 2006) That he was responsible and i quote "I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers … I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers … with the raids."
** Indictment? Is that a word needed when one conspires an "act of war" towards anothers homeland and admits to it? Where is the indictment for WTC 93 attack-AOW, what about the Cole-AOW? Please answer me these! The only indictment was for the 1998 embassie bombings on foriegn soil.**
We have an argueable,only nutjobs claim it was forged, admission of guilt, yet no indictment. So what. Like i said before its a good question, as to why???
Why?? claim by the twoofers it was the governments doing or an inside job. I even had a debate about the phrase "inside job" and bruce, the one i debated with, concured that our government may have been the true victum of some insiders. In other words by definition our government and thier citizens fell victim to an inside job. From jump street i have said there may have been a few people within that helped pull 9-11 off, i even posted one of the insiders on MTJ blog that got busted.
You see EG....if ladens indictement truely had you concerned, instead of arguementative, you would realise an act of war needs no indictment and your boy Clinton and congress had plenty on bin laden to make war against him and the countries that harbored AQ.
BIGDOG
They claimed in the video he incriminated himself. I have no way of personally verifying that. So we have to take the govt word. So that being the case and they had the mountains evidence. An indictment should be pretty easy to get. So despite that no charges to date or earlier for Bin Laden. Btw I never said he was innocent. My question is, if we have the data then where are the charges? And why if we have evidence is it taking so long to charge them? This is what gives the 9-11 people ammo against the government. Btw way I am open to rational explanations, please post me any video links of any building collapsing the way building 7 did due to structural damage only three legged or otherwise?
EG :"Show me the evidence(written of video of the concerning the buildings collapsing. I would love to see that. I am familiar with the three legged damaged argument. I think that could very well be true. But then why does it look like it fell at the rate of gravity?"
WTC 7 Collapse Explanation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA&feature=related
On the above link i want you to look at the top left of the building about the 2:33 mark. You will notice a dark outline of what appears to be a wall on the roof.
The clearest video reference of exactly where the collapse began is the one i linked you to. It began under the exact location of the 20 story hole removed from its ribcage here:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Firemen quotes in here also. Maybe NY finest are in on the cover up to?....right EG??? But i digress.
EG you tell me why the middle and the right stayed upright for more than free fall speed; twoofers claim 2.5 seconds for a building that size. If it was imploaded it would have free falled evenly or was noticeably to been even in collapse, in its own footprint. It took longer from its first noticeable point of movement to its end. Much longer than the rate of gravity as you put it. The exact angle of a camera is key in judgement of time ellapsed evals.
The eye and timed video shows about the 2:33-2:41 mark; it took aprox 8 seconds for a complete roof collapse alone. Twoofers say 2.5-3.3seconds is free fall speed for the whole building. It took longer for the roof to finish its collapse. I mean come on man, youre shittin me right?... I know you wouldnt shit your favorite turd...lol
If you want to say the imploded the left side first then i will suggest you take that up with the seismologist.
Half down Siesmic spikes and people like alex jones lieing about the siesmic readings.
here: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech
/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm#9
In fairness i would point out that there is alot of videos that debunk one claim, then debunks the debunked claim and so on. You can watch whatever you want to watch on it. Now i will post the expert opinions of fire fighting professionals from that day and demolition experts.
here:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYzLu7gDbJs
Plenty to read here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/
BIGDOG
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm
A German TV show found that the White House's translation of the "confession" video was not only inaccurate, but even "manipulative"
http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16801
Bin Laden is the "prime suspect" in the September 11 attacks, said President Bush on September 17, 2001, and he pledged to capture him "dead or alive."
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html
"The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – in the U.S. or in Afghanistan – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot." Robert S. Mueller III
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation April 19, 2002
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-04mueller-speech.html
Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy 08/01/2006
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
"how come the airline associations added an adittional 2 million? Can you say 9-11 additional reward? I mean the 1993 wtc attack isnt on there either, the Cole isnt either."
I think those are good questions
BIGmisinfoDOG, in the real world I'd bet that you are actually a good guy but what I have to go on here is what I've seen you post on these blogs; lies, misinformation, false accusations, and more recently threatening to snitch on somebody(?). We don't have to agree on everything but the probability that what you say could be a lie is very high. I think that it is important to discredit the lies that you spread, especially about something as important as 9/11. I'm asking you straight up what your agenda is because I'd really like to know why you do these things when a discussion doesn't go your way. I would also like to establish your shady online character in previous discussions with myself and others as your 'Modus Operandi' and assert that statements you make should be throughly scrutinized for falsity even before consideration. As evidence I submit your previous posts on this blog, Mtj's blog, and Marcus's blog. Unless you've had a change of heart in the last week or so, this is exagerated of course but it is pretty much how the "discussion" will go:
BIGDOG:
'blah blah blah... Usama loves america, Bush was an honest president, and the Earth is flat.'
Other Guy:
'blah blah blah... Usama and Bush can both kiss my nutz, and the earth is not flat'
BIGDOG:
'blah blah blah... What I said he said was what you implied that I said before. So we are in agreement that the earth IS flat and about 9/11 that Colonel Mustard did it in the Deep Underground Military Base with the candlestick and by Other Guy's own logic and reasoning he claims that Barack went back in time and was the second shooter on the grassy knoll. Got ya now, Doucher!'
Other Guy:
'blah blah blah... The earth is NOT flat, and I didn't agree to or claim any of that other stuff. Here are some facts links, Fucko!'
Top 10 ways to know the earth is NOT flat -
http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat
Interesting -
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060815201048AAsSEbs
http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/efs
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/20/tom-tomorrow-why-should-we-believe-the-earth-is-round-just-because-scientists-say-so
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data
BIGDOG:
'blah blah blah... You have no evidence, You're lying, The earth IS flat, I'm right, You're wrong, HAHAHA!!!'
Other Guy:
'blah blah blah... You're a lying dick, The earth is NOT flat, Whatever dude.'
(rinse and repeat)
Running for Office: It's Like A Flamewar with a Forum Troll, but with an Eventual Winner:
http://seantevis.com/kansas/3000/running-for-office-xkcd-style
NOVA producer Larry Klein discusses world trade center conspiracy theories with civil engineer S. Shyam Sunder. NIST
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html
'Debunking NIST's Conclusions About WTC 7 is as Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel' and other Responses to 8/21/08 NIST Briefing on WTC7
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080829205835711
6 Debunked 9/11 Conspiracy Claims From NIST's New WTC 7 Report
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278927
NIST Report On WTC 7 Debunked & Exposed
http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/05/21/nist-report-on-wtc-7-debunked-exposed
Erector Set - Empire State Building
http://www.fatbraintoys.com/toy_companies/schylling/erector_set_empire_state_building.cfm
1. They have a confession, they should use that as hard evidence and indicte his ass. As i said, its a good question.I am well aware of the quotes in that article you posted and i am also aware that 1993 and Cole attacks are not on his most wanted indicted list.
I would quickly point out no names were given in your article just a "FBI spokesman said". Not good enough for me to sway or add to a factual analysis.
Heres your deal as a see it. You dont care about the other two attacks and i dont know why. Well i actually do, it doesnt fit your agenda. Just like other debates you read into things that are not being said.
Your second artcile:
#2 If would take time to read your own article you would quickly realise that a few words may have been mistransalated and yes even added in. Some conclude its a forgery or some have argued that point. I believe from other debates and such you agree its a forgery or another orchestrated lie by Bushies.. In fact the person responsible for pointing out these errors never said once that it was forged and i have his name and contact info to verify....instead of a 'FBI SPOKESMAN SAID'.
Example of error in your article:
Whereas the White House would have us believe that OBL admits that "We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy", translator Dr. Murad Alami finds that: "'In advance'" is not said. The translation is wrong. At least when we look at the original Arabic, and there are no misunderstandings to allow us to read it into the original."
'In advanced' removed: "We calculated the number of casualties from the enemy" [said OBL]
Your article also states: "Michael, who is originally Lebanese, translated the tape with Kassem Wahba, an Egyptian. Both men had difficulties with the Saudi dialect bin Laden and his guest use in the tape, Michael said."
Now, one could easily see mistakes were made. Nothing was forged. I know, I know, Bush lied...:rolleyes:
BIGDOG
Being thoruogh and looking into the FBI Spokesman, Rex Tomb i will give him some credibility and take some from you at the same time.
as i dug further i discover more dismissal and dishonesty by you:
I found this article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/
AR2006082700687.html
"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."
Quote coveniently left out.
Then i found this piece. Wich somehow shows your complete set of talking points and links.
http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2006/
20060612_bin_laden_911_fbi.htm
So you found some quotes and you left some out also. The crucial parts you left out and those you posted damage your premise and any articles posted.
BIGDOG using uttmost scrutiny.
Bigdog's bullshit: "as i dug further i discover more dismissal and dishonesty by you" And the quote: "There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."
me: So we could have charged him but we didn't because we just don't need to? These DoD guys can go over to the middle east, blow shit up and kill hundreds of thousands of people, sacrificing thousands of our own soldiers in the process, all on the premise that Bin Laden masterminded 911, but they just don't need evidence or criminal investigation or formal charges. They don't have any hard evidence that he even did it, dude! He might have been involved but we really don't know. Maybe the gov just went off half-cocked about some shit but they really didn't know what they were talking about. I've certainly been guilty of that before and you're doing it right now, but in all three cases, it needs to be owned up to eventually and when hundreds of thousands of human lives hang in the balance, it needs to be sooner than later.
"The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice," the FBI says in a note accompanying the terrorist list on its Web site. "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."
me: Well guess what, it's halfway through 2010 now and still no charges have been brought against OBL for 9-11-2001. It's been damn near nine fucking years of torturing/interrogating/killing people and digging through caves and they still don't have enough evidence to charge him. Now who's being dismissive and dishonest? The first step is admitting it. Denial isn't just a river in egypt.
Bigdog's bullshit: "Then i found this piece. Wich somehow shows your complete set of talking points and links.
http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2006/20060612_bin_laden_911_fbi.htm "
me: No it doesn't. If you actually look, you'll find a whole lot of pieces out there that bring up some of the same points. There is a reason for that.
Bigdog's bullshit: "So you found some quotes and you left some out also. The crucial parts you left out and those you posted damage your premise and any articles posted."
me: How so?
Bigdog's bullshit: "BIGDOG using uttmost scrutiny."
me: No, you're not.
me: You can be free.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiqmEibSY0I
Funkadelic - Wake Up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVqgC2Nj85g
Bigdog's bullshit: "Heres your deal as a see it. You dont care about the other two attacks and i dont know why. Well i actually do, it doesnt fit your agenda. Just like other debates you read into things that are not being said."
me: Apparently, they don't have enough evidence to charge him with those attacks either. How are those attacks related to this discussion? If you have evidence that he did those then you should call the fbi and give it to them because there isn't much that I can do with it. Exactly what are you refering to when you say that I'm reading into things that aren't being said? If you mean thinking about things with my own mind and seeing exactly what they said then yes, I do that often. What you do is make shit up that was never there.
Bigdog's bullshit: "I would quickly point out no names were given in your article just a "FBI spokesman said". Not good enough for me to sway or add to a factual analysis."
What I actually posted from the article here:
"The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
me: In fact, you can scan this page and the reference articles for the term "FBI spokesman" using ctrl+F , and the term "FBI spokesman" always refers to: Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, Rex Tomb
Bigdog's bullshit: "Now, one could easily see mistakes were made. Nothing was forged. I know, I know, Bush lied...:rolleyes:"
me: I'll give ya the following quote that you left out and add that if the bush admin didn't know what the hell the was for sure being said then why did they pretend like they did.
"'the first translation was rushed in 12 hours, in a room in the Pentagon'. So why didn't the new US translation find the same discrepancies as the German translators did?"
"Michael, one of two translators hired by the government, says he handed the more detailed transcript to the Pentagon on Wednesday."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/20/attack/main322092.shtml
Analysis By CBSNews.com Legal Consultant Andrew Cohen:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/14/opinion/courtwatch/main321333.shtml
Thank you brother. I am glad someone is setting him straight because I do not always have the time :)
I never denied what the spokesman said but you didnt provide a complete picture and how that same spokesmen said they could indicte him in the future and i brought that to your attention. BTW i believe they said it was ongoing also. Oh and i dont believe that going into Afghan approx. 1 1/2 years later after his 'rub it in' confession; as going off half cocked. So dont get shit twisted.
Then after all this zig zagging by you. Well lets just say you changed your tune.
and i quote:
"The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice," the FBI says in a note accompanying the terrorist list on its Web site. "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."
me: Well guess what, it's halfway through 2010 now and still no charges have been brought against OBL for 9-11-2001.
Finally a factual statement. First time for everything. However your admended position on this issue has yet to sink in so let me help you.
me: Well guess what, it's halfway through 2010 now and still no charges have been brought against OBL for 9-11-2001, WTC 1993 and The Cole attack.
There we go thats better. See you fucked up and i helped you straighten up.
BIGDOG bringing honesty to the dishonest.
Anthony did you watch the video i posted showing that WTC 7 collapse?
Having the best camera angle is crucial to seeing where collapse began and how long it took from start to finish. Noting how the collapse doesnt match up with the speed of gravity/freefall claims made bu twoofers.
BIGDOG
Right on. By the way, years ago when you had a guy named Cameron on your show a couple times, though I didn't end up going too far down his rabbithole, I got a whole lot out of those shows. Thanks.
Big Dog is totally right on, Osama hates for our freedoms AND our laws of physics, you know he did learn about structural steel at Job Corps.
Buildings always fall into the path of most resistance that is why everyday, modern skyscrapers fall into their own footprints
Post a Comment