By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
9/11 unanswered questions on 23:02 - Mar 27 by jackedup
You are either misrepresenting my arguments deliberately or misconstruing them completely.
I never stated that what the things done under the guise of "network upgrades" were done in order to remove asbestos.
Obviously demolishing a building containing asbestos obviates the need for asbestos removal, correct?
And getting over 5 billiion dollars in insurance money is better than having to spend hundreds of millions in asbestos removal, right?
Oh so I get it now! It was an elaborate asbestos removal operation and a devilishly cunning one at that. Kill thousands of people and pollute New York with that very Asbestos dust to save on the removal costs. Get you now!
Argus!
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 23:14 - Mar 27 with 2330 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 22:02 - Mar 27 by Dr_Winston
A rather small hole?
That is a picture of what it looked like after they decided to collapse the part damaged already, since it would have been dangerous to have parts of the wall left above the damaged part.
The pictures of the cranes at the site are further evidence that you are looking at a picture of something that doesn't represent real "forensic evidence."
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 23:16 - Mar 27 with 2320 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 23:13 - Mar 27 by Wingstandwood
Oh so I get it now! It was an elaborate asbestos removal operation and a devilishly cunning one at that. Kill thousands of people and pollute New York with that very Asbestos dust to save on the removal costs. Get you now!
Yes, it was that and much more.
For Unocal, 911 gave them the opportunity to use miltary action in Afghanistan in order to overthrow the government that didn't authorise their pipeline project, which Unocal VP John Maresca had explicitly stated was needed in order to transport the Caspian Sea oil to East Asian markets.
For the defense industry, 911 gave the excuse to increase defense spending by the 48 billion dollars that was explicitly stated in "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which would have been extremely difficult otherwise.
Destruction of the WTC also meant that key Enron documents would be destroyed, since the Securities and Exchange Commission had many of their documents stored in WTC. Since Kenneth Lay, or "Kenny Boy" as he was called by George W Bush, was a key contributor to the Bush campaign, this was rather important.
And for those parties that planned to steal the massive gold reserves being stored in the WTC, 911 was the perfect opportunity, and that is precisely what they did prior to its collapse.
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 23:21 - Mar 27 with 2304 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 23:21 - Mar 27 by morningstar
Surely the insurance claims investigator would have realised something was up when he called round to assess the claim tho?
[Post edited 27 Mar 2016 23:22]
He wouldn't have had any need to refuse the claim, and Silverstein's legal team obviously had most of the media and the public on their side, as well as the government.
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 23:35 - Mar 27 with 2266 views
Ok then we've heard one side of the argument, let's hear the other side of it. Let's see what factual evidence outside the mainstream news you have found yourself?
Daz? Warwick?
Not having a go but everyone is having a piece of Jackedup and no one is really presenting anything other than b*llocks.
I believe it was an inside job involving Saudi/US to enable the west to go to war, but there is so much smoke an mirrors we will never get near the real truth.
9/11 unanswered questions on 23:35 - Mar 27 by Ebo
Ok then we've heard one side of the argument, let's hear the other side of it. Let's see what factual evidence outside the mainstream news you have found yourself?
Daz? Warwick?
Not having a go but everyone is having a piece of Jackedup and no one is really presenting anything other than b*llocks.
I believe it was an inside job involving Saudi/US to enable the west to go to war, but there is so much smoke an mirrors we will never get near the real truth.
Baaaa baaaaaa.
Love you Johnny you mental case.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
9/11 unanswered questions on 23:35 - Mar 27 by Ebo
Ok then we've heard one side of the argument, let's hear the other side of it. Let's see what factual evidence outside the mainstream news you have found yourself?
Daz? Warwick?
Not having a go but everyone is having a piece of Jackedup and no one is really presenting anything other than b*llocks.
I believe it was an inside job involving Saudi/US to enable the west to go to war, but there is so much smoke an mirrors we will never get near the real truth.
Baaaa baaaaaa.
because the USA said so, obviously. I mean when have they ever lied to the international community....
9/11 unanswered questions on 00:11 - Mar 28 by phact0rri
because the USA said so, obviously. I mean when have they ever lied to the international community....
... oh right.
Are you suggesting that Colin Powell and company were lying when they were talking about those mobile WMD labs, none of which were found on any satellite images?
Or that that Bush's lackeys in the UK actually didn't write the dossier on the Iraq weapons program that seemed to have been plagiarised from a paper written several years before?
Are you suggesting that David Kelly wasn't actually offed when he refused to toe the party line?
You're a lunatic, obviously; because Bush, Blair, Powell and Rumsfeld are the epitome of integrity.
[Post edited 28 Mar 2016 0:19]
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 00:22 - Mar 28 with 2182 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 23:41 - Mar 27 by Ebo
Yeah, but come on no one is coming up with anything but b*llox instead of actually engaging properly.
There is more than enough evidence that the US government has done this kind of trick before. Gulf of Tonkin anyone?
Mate, it's all out there. In spades. All this is nonsense has been debunked with proper research.
If people want to be selective, quote nutjobs on Youtube and believe this infantile guff then there's not much point in indulging in rational debate, especially when trying to prove a negative.
9/11 unanswered questions on 00:48 - Mar 28 by WarwickHunt
Mate, it's all out there. In spades. All this is nonsense has been debunked with proper research.
If people want to be selective, quote nutjobs on Youtube and believe this infantile guff then there's not much point in indulging in rational debate, especially when trying to prove a negative.
Much of this "debunking" stuff is deceptive BS. For instance the National Geographic special where they "prove" that fires can weaken steel is pointless, because it doesn't make the important distinction between UL certified construction grade steel that has been tested to withstand 2000 degree C fires for 22 hours and run of the mill steel.
PBS Nova claims it was a pancake collapse. Do you actually believe that simultaneous truss failure can be brought about by 2 "isolated pockets of fire" that a single firefighter says that he could knock out?
Do you think 110-story construction-grade steel framed buildings having 48 massive support columns can collapse directly on their own footprint as a result of carbon fires?
If so, show me another instance where it has happened!
Why does NIST admit that their best explanation of how the towers began to collapse, which didn't even consider the possiblity of explosives, has an extremely low probability? Of course, a government-funded institution such as NIST would not be allowed to consider such a possibility, even when all the evidence points to the same cause.
World Trade Center Bulding 7, a 47 story steel-structured building, collapsed in only 6.5 seconds, which is barely a half second faster than free-fall speed if calculated from the height at the top of the roof. Do you actually think this is possible without explosives?
Luckily, not everyone is as dull as you are.
1
9/11 unanswered questions on 01:07 - Mar 28 with 2143 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 00:59 - Mar 28 by jackedup
Another lazy post by Warwick.
Much of this "debunking" stuff is deceptive BS. For instance the National Geographic special where they "prove" that fires can weaken steel is pointless, because it doesn't make the important distinction between UL certified construction grade steel that has been tested to withstand 2000 degree C fires for 22 hours and run of the mill steel.
PBS Nova claims it was a pancake collapse. Do you actually believe that simultaneous truss failure can be brought about by 2 "isolated pockets of fire" that a single firefighter says that he could knock out?
Do you think 110-story construction-grade steel framed buildings having 48 massive support columns can collapse directly on their own footprint as a result of carbon fires?
If so, show me another instance where it has happened!
Why does NIST admit that their best explanation of how the towers began to collapse, which didn't even consider the possiblity of explosives, has an extremely low probability? Of course, a government-funded institution such as NIST would not be allowed to consider such a possibility, even when all the evidence points to the same cause.
World Trade Center Bulding 7, a 47 story steel-structured building, collapsed in only 6.5 seconds, which is barely a half second faster than free-fall speed if calculated from the height at the top of the roof. Do you actually think this is possible without explosives?
Luckily, not everyone is as dull as you are.
I could eat alphabet soup and sh1t more intelligent posts than you.
F*cking tinfoil hat-wearing fruitcake. See a shrink, you f*cking loon.
Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
2
9/11 unanswered questions on 01:09 - Mar 28 with 2139 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 19:37 - Mar 27 by jojaca
I watched a couple of documentaries on Netflix a few years, which raises your suspicion on a particular event(exactly like the moon landings) and I am getting abused on a football forum.
Serious question.
Do you honestly think man has not landed on the moon?
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 01:14 - Mar 28 with 2132 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 00:48 - Mar 28 by WarwickHunt
Mate, it's all out there. In spades. All this is nonsense has been debunked with proper research.
If people want to be selective, quote nutjobs on Youtube and believe this infantile guff then there's not much point in indulging in rational debate, especially when trying to prove a negative.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
