View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Sign these petitions for a new REAL 9/11 investigation!

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Sign these petitions for a new REAL 9/11 investigation!

Postby really? » 18 Sep 2012, 22:01

Scepcop wrote:Common sense questions for anti-conspiracy people to ask themselves:

If fire can demolish skyscrapers in a few hours, then why do demolition companies need 2 or 3 months to rig it with explosives to destroy it? Wouldn't fire put demolition companies out of business?

Buildings don't have zero resistance. If they did, the roof above you would collapse on you right now. Yet the WTC and Building 7 had near zero resistance. The government can't explain that. So they avoid such questions and call you crazy if you ask them. You aren't supposed to think about stuff like that. You are supposed to only care about the basketball game and whatever shit the mainstream media talk about. Thinking is not normal. Truth is whatever authority tells you and whatever others repeat. That's all you're supposed to know.

Next time you're on an airline, turn on your cell phone, look at the zero signal strength on your phone display, and ask yourself "If this plane were hijacked, could I make calls to my loved ones from my cell phone, as the official story claims you can?" Better yet, ask the flight attendant, "Excuse me, if my cell phone can't get any signals on this plane, then how were the passengers on the airlines on 9/11 able to make calls?" and watch their face look shocked at such a logical question that is taboo to ask.

Always remember this: Authority is not truth. Truth is the Authority.


Winston have you seen this topic ?
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2393
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58






Re: Sign these petitions for a new REAL 9/11 investigation!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 20 Sep 2012, 15:56

ProfWag wrote:
If it takes 2 or 3 months to rig a building, why did no one see anyone doing it?

Plenty of opportunities for 'maintenance', especially after hours, when you have the run of the buildings. There were reports of extensive closures of floors and lifts for the 12 months preceding 9/11 for 'maintenance'. You would have to make an effort to do that research, however, rather than being the 'pseudosceptic' about it unresearched.

ProfWag wrote:
You said in the first line that buildings don't have zero resistance. No one questions that. In the next line, you said the buildings had "near" zero resistance. If your first statement was relevant, then your second statement wouldn't have used the word "near." You can't compare the two. You're trying to put a thought in someone's head that is totally irrelavant to your point, thus your statement is invalid and not common sense as you suggest.

He means they demonstrated near zero resistance to gravity at the time of collapse, collapsing at near free-fall speed. Normal structurally strong buildings do not have that weakness, implying the joints of the building had been weakened.

ProfWag wrote:You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Cell phones can and do work on planes. In fact, it's legal on many European airlines and passengers in the States break the law on average of 1 to 4 times per flight. Do some research Winston. Please?

At what height? There is new technology that acts as a relay these days, that wasn't installed on those flights. Nor were in-plane phone systems available at that time installed in those planes, contrary to the guesswork from some people at the time about how certain 'impossible' calls could have been made. Recent research suggests that calls cannot be made from planes at 10-30,000 feet without the relay technology fitted. Like the odds of the 7/7 explosions occurring at exactly the same places as an identical 'exercise' being run that same day being a trillion trillion to one, the public are expected not to dwell on those things or think about them, they are just bluffed that 'of course' it was possible. Even at low altitude, it takes several seconds of handshaking with a single nearest tower to establish a phone call, and a plane is moving so fast over cell tower zones that handshaking cannot successfully complete. Taxiing on the runway or just taking off or landing might be a different story. Further, the antennas don't point up, i.e. they are directionally designed to maximise transmissions at ground level and at speeds of up to only 100 mph, as in a moving car, not 500mph as in a plane at cruising speed.

http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93
http://www.globalresearch.ca/phone-calls-from-the-9-11-airliners/
"by January 28, 2001, the passenger phone system for the AA 757 fleet had already been deactivated."

Interestingly, the families of people who were killed in the buildings are known to be stroppy, suspicious of the official explanation and demanding a new investigation, etc, but whenever supposed 'families' of supposed people on the planes are contacted for an opinion, they tend to conform to the official view and don't want to rock the boat or press for compensation. Interesting. This conforms with the idea that many of the identities on the planes were faked, i.e. the people never existed.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Sign these petitions for a new REAL 9/11 investigation!

Postby ProfWag » 21 Sep 2012, 05:07

SydneyPSIder wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
If it takes 2 or 3 months to rig a building, why did no one see anyone doing it?

Plenty of opportunities for 'maintenance', especially after hours, when you have the run of the buildings. There were reports of extensive closures of floors and lifts for the 12 months preceding 9/11 for 'maintenance'. You would have to make an effort to do that research, however, rather than being the 'pseudosceptic' about it unresearched.

No, many, many people were inside the WTCs 24/7. They would never in a million years had free run of the buildings.

ProfWag wrote:
You said in the first line that buildings don't have zero resistance. No one questions that. In the next line, you said the buildings had "near" zero resistance. If your first statement was relevant, then your second statement wouldn't have used the word "near." You can't compare the two. You're trying to put a thought in someone's head that is totally irrelavant to your point, thus your statement is invalid and not common sense as you suggest.

SydneyPSIder wrote:He means they demonstrated near zero resistance to gravity at the time of collapse, collapsing at near free-fall speed. Normal structurally strong buildings do not have that weakness, implying the joints of the building had been weakened.

I know what he meant, but he attempted to put a false image in our heads that buildings do not have zero resistance and then he claims they fell in "near zero" resistance. So why does someone have to say that buildings don't have zero resistance? To make their claim of a CD sound stronger. What he really needs to do is cut through the bullsh!t and show an image of other buildings that were built like the WTCs that collapsed when a plane hit them and then compare. Oh, there isn't anything to compare to? Then I guess it's a moot point and what he really needs to do is find the hundreds of people who would have either been involved in the demolition or witnessed it and get one of them to admit it. Oh, he can't do that either? Hmpf.
SydneyPSIder wrote:
ProfWag wrote:You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Cell phones can and do work on planes. In fact, it's legal on many European airlines and passengers in the States break the law on average of 1 to 4 times per flight. Do some research Winston. Please?

At what height? There is new technology that acts as a relay these days, that wasn't installed on those flights. Nor were in-plane phone systems available at that time installed in those planes, contrary to the guesswork from some people at the time about how certain 'impossible' calls could have been made. Recent research suggests that calls cannot be made from planes at 10-30,000 feet without the relay technology fitted. Like the odds of the 7/7 explosions occurring at exactly the same places as an identical 'exercise' being run that same day being a trillion trillion to one, the public are expected not to dwell on those things or think about them, they are just bluffed that 'of course' it was possible. Even at low altitude, it takes several seconds of handshaking with a single nearest tower to establish a phone call, and a plane is moving so fast over cell tower zones that handshaking cannot successfully complete. Taxiing on the runway or just taking off or landing might be a different story. Further, the antennas don't point up, i.e. they are directionally designed to maximise transmissions at ground level and at speeds of up to only 100 mph, as in a moving car, not 500mph as in a plane at cruising speed.

http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93
http://www.globalresearch.ca/phone-calls-from-the-9-11-airliners/
"by January 28, 2001, the passenger phone system for the AA 757 fleet had already been deactivated."

Interestingly, the families of people who were killed in the buildings are known to be stroppy, suspicious of the official explanation and demanding a new investigation, etc, but whenever supposed 'families' of supposed people on the planes are contacted for an opinion, they tend to conform to the official view and don't want to rock the boat or press for compensation. Interesting. This conforms with the idea that many of the identities on the planes were faked, i.e. the people never existed.

I challenge you to find the order from Maintenance on AA flights that state they had been deactivated. Workers say there was an order to have them deactivated, but there is no evidence that the work had been carried out. None. Nadda. Zip.

Additionally, from the New York Times: "According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles."
I prefer not to go there concerning the families of the victims. In my opinion, it's just not cool.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Sign these petitions for a new REAL 9/11 investigation!

Postby NinjaPuppy » 21 Sep 2012, 05:38

ProfWag wrote:I prefer not to go there concerning the families of the victims. In my opinion, it's just not cool.

WhatchutalkinboutWag??? :shock:

OP said:
Interestingly, the families of people who were killed in the buildings are known to be stroppy, suspicious of the official explanation and demanding a new investigation, etc, but whenever supposed 'families' of supposed people on the planes are contacted for an opinion, they tend to conform to the official view and don't want to rock the boat or press for compensation. Interesting. This conforms with the idea that many of the identities on the planes were faked, i.e. the people never existed.


I'd like to go there. For starters I'd like to ask where OP got this information?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Sign these petitions for a new REAL 9/11 investigation!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 21 Sep 2012, 06:57

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
If it takes 2 or 3 months to rig a building, why did no one see anyone doing it?

Plenty of opportunities for 'maintenance', especially after hours, when you have the run of the buildings. There were reports of extensive closures of floors and lifts for the 12 months preceding 9/11 for 'maintenance'. You would have to make an effort to do that research, however, rather than being the 'pseudosceptic' about it unresearched.

No, many, many people were inside the WTCs 24/7. They would never in a million years had free run of the buildings.

ProfWag wrote:
You said in the first line that buildings don't have zero resistance. No one questions that. In the next line, you said the buildings had "near" zero resistance. If your first statement was relevant, then your second statement wouldn't have used the word "near." You can't compare the two. You're trying to put a thought in someone's head that is totally irrelavant to your point, thus your statement is invalid and not common sense as you suggest.

SydneyPSIder wrote:He means they demonstrated near zero resistance to gravity at the time of collapse, collapsing at near free-fall speed. Normal structurally strong buildings do not have that weakness, implying the joints of the building had been weakened.


I know what he meant, but he attempted to put a false image in our heads that buildings do not have zero resistance and then he claims they fell in "near zero" resistance. So why does someone have to say that buildings don't have zero resistance? To make their claim of a CD sound stronger. What he really needs to do is cut through the bullsh!t and show an image of other buildings that were built like the WTCs that collapsed when a plane hit them and then compare. Oh, there isn't anything to compare to? Then I guess it's a moot point and what he really needs to do is find the hundreds of people who would have either been involved in the demolition or witnessed it and get one of them to admit it. Oh, he can't do that either? Hmpf.
SydneyPSIder wrote:
ProfWag wrote:You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Cell phones can and do work on planes. In fact, it's legal on many European airlines and passengers in the States break the law on average of 1 to 4 times per flight. Do some research Winston. Please?

At what height? There is new technology that acts as a relay these days, that wasn't installed on those flights. Nor were in-plane phone systems available at that time installed in those planes, contrary to the guesswork from some people at the time about how certain 'impossible' calls could have been made. Recent research suggests that calls cannot be made from planes at 10-30,000 feet without the relay technology fitted. Like the odds of the 7/7 explosions occurring at exactly the same places as an identical 'exercise' being run that same day being a trillion trillion to one, the public are expected not to dwell on those things or think about them, they are just bluffed that 'of course' it was possible. Even at low altitude, it takes several seconds of handshaking with a single nearest tower to establish a phone call, and a plane is moving so fast over cell tower zones that handshaking cannot successfully complete. Taxiing on the runway or just taking off or landing might be a different story. Further, the antennas don't point up, i.e. they are directionally designed to maximise transmissions at ground level and at speeds of up to only 100 mph, as in a moving car, not 500mph as in a plane at cruising speed.

http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93
http://www.globalresearch.ca/phone-calls-from-the-9-11-airliners/
"by January 28, 2001, the passenger phone system for the AA 757 fleet had already been deactivated."

Interestingly, the families of people who were killed in the buildings are known to be stroppy, suspicious of the official explanation and demanding a new investigation, etc, but whenever supposed 'families' of supposed people on the planes are contacted for an opinion, they tend to conform to the official view and don't want to rock the boat or press for compensation. Interesting. This conforms with the idea that many of the identities on the planes were faked, i.e. the people never existed.

I challenge you to find the order from Maintenance on AA flights that state they had been deactivated. Workers say there was an order to have them deactivated, but there is no evidence that the work had been carried out. None. Nadda. Zip.

Additionally, from the New York Times: "According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles."
I prefer not to go there concerning the families of the victims. In my opinion, it's just not cool.

None of what you've said goes anywhere, I'm afraid, ProfWag. Many many floors of the WTC towers had no tenants at all for many years, some were empty for a full 26 years before 9/11. Go and look at the FOI-gained tenancy records of the building on the net obtained by researchers. The WTC was a huge loss-making white elephant from Day 1 with many vacancies, many rental subsidies, well away from all the other commercial tenancies in NYC, with tiny windows with no harbour views, and a billion dollars worth of asbestos rectification required. The thing was an insurance job waiting to happen. The new lessees had a few anti-terrorism clauses put in their new contract 6 weeks before the event, allowing them to rebuild the whole structures out of cash if necessary, with European re-insurers being on the hook for the full amount. Demonstrate to me why 9 to 5ers in that building were there 24/7. You only need a weekend per floor to plant the explosives, every 3 floors. Certain 'removal' company vans which were stopped after 9/11 in the area had explosives residue, i.e. explosive-sniffing dogs were being set off. The people in the vans were arrested, held, then eventually quietly released -- they were from overseas.

There are hundreds of architects willing to vouch that no modern skyscraper will go down like that. A friend of mine who is an architect in Australia on 9/11 was with their boss who was an expert on those buildings, and he was pulling out books on the day saying it wasn't possible. The designer designed the things to take the impact of a 707. WTC7 collapsed all by itself with no impact, something further you are overlooking. Firemen are not trained to expect collapsing skyscrapers in a fire, because it never happens, hence their expressed deep surprise and disbelief on the day. Other skyscrapers have caught fire before in history and not a single one has ever collapsed, even when many floors were gutted. The steel frames just keep standing. There is a great deal more evidence to discuss in that area, a great deal.

Your claims that phone systems that were officially deactivated by an airline prior to the event simply were not deactivated is ludicrous and without substance -- this is the sort of thing that commercial companies make absolutely sure are either available or unavailable to customers as a service, there is no 'we were instructed to turn if off but we never got round to it and customers kept using a paying service for free without our consent' malarkey. Off is off.

Regarding the 'families' on the plane vs the families on the ground, that's a piece of research that came up just a couple of days ago while I was reading -- perhaps you could do the same research for yourself!
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Sign these petitions for a new REAL 9/11 investigation!

Postby NinjaPuppy » 21 Sep 2012, 07:54

SydneyPSIder wrote:Regarding the 'families' on the plane vs the families on the ground, that's a piece of research that came up just a couple of days ago while I was reading -- perhaps you could do the same research for yourself!

Well I certainly can, but since you are the one who made the statement, it was easier to ask you. So far what I have found is this: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html but I doubt it pertains to your statement.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Sign these petitions for a new REAL 9/11 investigation!

Postby NinjaPuppy » 21 Sep 2012, 08:20

Interestingly, the families of people who were killed in the buildings are known to be stroppy, suspicious of the official explanation and demanding a new investigation, etc, but whenever supposed 'families' of supposed people on the planes are contacted for an opinion, they tend to conform to the official view and don't want to rock the boat or press for compensation. Interesting. This conforms with the idea that many of the identities on the planes were faked, i.e. the people never existed.

Is this it? http://rense.com/general68/doomed.htm

Of course if you read the sites disclaimer: http://rense.com/disclaimer.htm It seems to be a bit confusing.

And when you go to the credited author, you get this: http://www.arcticbeacon.com/greg/

None of which is what I would call a reliable source for your above statement.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Sign these petitions for a new REAL 9/11 investigation!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 21 Sep 2012, 08:26

Excellent work, Ninja! They will do for now. How reliable a source do you need? Imagine for a moment, if you posit a govt cover-up at the highest levels, where do you think you will get your info from?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Sign these petitions for a new REAL 9/11 investigation!

Postby NinjaPuppy » 21 Sep 2012, 08:42

SydneyPSIder wrote:Excellent work, Ninja! They will do for now. How reliable a source do you need?

More reliable than one guy making a claim. A few factual words from an actual family member would be a good start. I can find survivors statements but they don't say a thing about how good or bad the official report is and the only statements I can find from families of the people on the planes were about their loved ones.
SydneyPSIder wrote:Imagine for a moment, if you posit a govt cover-up at the highest levels, where do you think you will get your info from?

As far as the statement in question, any statement from a (plane) family member that supports your claim would be good.

In my experience, when people are unhappy about something they speak out. When you have people who have had such tragedy come into their lives, they are usually hounded by the media because it's good press. If you can direct me to any of these interviews, it would speed up my quest for information.

Back to your question about where you get your information about a high level gov't cover up.... Off the top of my head there's one that I know about was in some dark parking garage from some guy who called himself "Deep Throat".
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Sign these petitions for a new REAL 9/11 investigation!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 21 Sep 2012, 08:50

Note:

Editor's Note: Of course, not all family members of the airline victims have been contacted. If there exists anyone who disagrees with the official 9/11story or wants to comment about this article, the Arctic Beacon requests you contact our office so that your story and opinions can be heard.

Greg Szymanski is an independent investigative journalist.

For more Greg Szymanski articles, please visit
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/arcticbeacon.html


Of course, a true 'scientist' would investigate and follow up by contacting Greg, the Arctic Beacon and even Dr Olmsted and others to find out more and corroborate stories, rather than die wondering. I'm not sure if you are in the US NP but if so it would be a lot easier for you to do so than me. A pseudosceptic of course would just sit around disparaging the sources without doing any more research or genuine scientific enquiry. ('Science' means, loosely 'to know', to answer the definitional problems of some of our non-scientific pseudosceptic friends on another thread.)

There's also an extremely long list of extremely sceptical WTC survivors on your other link who would be easy to contact and gain more information from -- although the website is pretty comprehensive. (Note these are people genuinely sceptical of the offical govt account, for good personal eyewitness reasons, rather than pseudosceptics.) Certainly you could verify the veracity of their accounts by a personal approach.

The chances of a 'deep throat' coming out of somewhere are uncertain, so why not start a few threads of research of your own?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Sign these petitions for a new REAL 9/11 investigation!

Postby ProfWag » 21 Sep 2012, 09:04

NinjaPuppy wrote:
ProfWag wrote:I prefer not to go there concerning the families of the victims. In my opinion, it's just not cool.

WhatchutalkinboutWag??? :shock:

OP said:
Interestingly, the families of people who were killed in the buildings are known to be stroppy, suspicious of the official explanation and demanding a new investigation, etc, but whenever supposed 'families' of supposed people on the planes are contacted for an opinion, they tend to conform to the official view and don't want to rock the boat or press for compensation. Interesting. This conforms with the idea that many of the identities on the planes were faked, i.e. the people never existed.


I'd like to go there. For starters I'd like to ask where OP got this information?

I'm thinking that it's not cool to suggest that the families are fake and that people who died in the plane never existed, per the OPs last sentence.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Sign these petitions for a new REAL 9/11 investigation!

Postby NinjaPuppy » 21 Sep 2012, 09:06

SydneyPSIder wrote:Note:

Editor's Note: Of course, not all family members of the airline victims have been contacted. If there exists anyone who disagrees with the official 9/11story or wants to comment about this article, the Arctic Beacon requests you contact our office so that your story and opinions can be heard.

Greg Szymanski is an independent investigative journalist.

For more Greg Szymanski articles, please visit
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/arcticbeacon.html

I did visit Mr. Szymanski's website. That's how I decided I would be more comfortable with an additional source rather than an independent source.

SydneyPSIder wrote:Of course, a true 'scientist' would investigate and follow up by contacting Greg, the Arctic Beacon and even Dr Olmsted and others to find out more and corroborate stories, rather than die wondering.

Ahhh, but a true reporter would cite his sources in his article.

SydneyPSIder wrote:I'm not sure if you are in the US NP but if so it would be a lot easier for you to do so than me. A pseudosceptic of course would just sit around disparaging the sources without doing any more research or genuine scientific enquiry. ('Science' means, loosely 'to know', to answer the definitional problems of some of our non-scientific pseudosceptic friends on another thread.)

I am in fact in the US of A but I tend to shy away from contacting independent reporters or radio show hosts or owners of websites. And yes, a pseudoskeptic would in fact disparage sources but so do believers and CTers and anyone who might disagree on a topic. The burden of proof in a debate is on the person making the claim if there are not facts to substantiate the claim. Sometimes there is no immediate proof that can be presented for various reasons.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Sign these petitions for a new REAL 9/11 investigation!

Postby NinjaPuppy » 21 Sep 2012, 09:10

ProfWag wrote:I'm thinking that it's not cool to suggest that the families are fake and that people who died in the plane never existed, per the OPs last sentence.

Not cool? We're talking about what may or may not be a massive gov't cover up here. If you don't put all the cards out on the table, you will never find answers.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Sign these petitions for a new REAL 9/11 investigation!

Postby ProfWag » 21 Sep 2012, 09:28

SydneyPSIder wrote:None of what you've said goes anywhere, I'm afraid, ProfWag. Many many floors of the WTC towers had no tenants at all for many years, some were empty for a full 26 years before 9/11. Go and look at the FOI-gained tenancy records of the building on the net obtained by researchers. The WTC was a huge loss-making white elephant from Day 1 with many vacancies, many rental subsidies, well away from all the other commercial tenancies in NYC, with tiny windows with no harbour views, and a billion dollars worth of asbestos rectification required. The thing was an insurance job waiting to happen. The new lessees had a few anti-terrorism clauses put in their new contract 6 weeks before the event, allowing them to rebuild the whole structures out of cash if necessary, with European re-insurers being on the hook for the full amount. Demonstrate to me why 9 to 5ers in that building were there 24/7. You only need a weekend per floor to plant the explosives, every 3 floors. Certain 'removal' company vans which were stopped after 9/11 in the area had explosives residue, i.e. explosive-sniffing dogs were being set off. The people in the vans were arrested, held, then eventually quietly released -- they were from overseas.!

I appreciate your general knowledge of the incident Syd. It's definitely conspiracy driven, but you've done some homework from a conspiracy side none-the-less.
Food for thought: Even long before 9/11, every building of WTCs stature has/had 24/7 security throughout, there are janitors, round the clock offices, and many more people who are in a building such as that at all hours. Buildings with 50,000 workers may have some empty space, but it still takes a small army of public works personnel to keep it afloat. Additionally, the Fire Department across the street from the WTC responded to an average of 12 calls PER DAY (and night) in the WTCs, responding to all sorts of calls and often using the back stairwells and other passagways not accesable to the general public. What people suggest when it comes to a controlled demolition is that every member of Firehouse 10 were in on the conspiracy as well. It simply is not feasable for a crew to wire up the WTCs for demolition without large numbers of people, including fire and police personnel, knowing about it in advance.
I still challenge anyone to produce one person who states they saw anything of that magnitude take place. Without it, the controlled demolition portion of a conspiracy cannot exist.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Sign these petitions for a new REAL 9/11 investigation!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 21 Sep 2012, 09:45

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:None of what you've said goes anywhere, I'm afraid, ProfWag. Many many floors of the WTC towers had no tenants at all for many years, some were empty for a full 26 years before 9/11. Go and look at the FOI-gained tenancy records of the building on the net obtained by researchers. The WTC was a huge loss-making white elephant from Day 1 with many vacancies, many rental subsidies, well away from all the other commercial tenancies in NYC, with tiny windows with no harbour views, and a billion dollars worth of asbestos rectification required. The thing was an insurance job waiting to happen. The new lessees had a few anti-terrorism clauses put in their new contract 6 weeks before the event, allowing them to rebuild the whole structures out of cash if necessary, with European re-insurers being on the hook for the full amount. Demonstrate to me why 9 to 5ers in that building were there 24/7. You only need a weekend per floor to plant the explosives, every 3 floors. Certain 'removal' company vans which were stopped after 9/11 in the area had explosives residue, i.e. explosive-sniffing dogs were being set off. The people in the vans were arrested, held, then eventually quietly released -- they were from overseas.!

I appreciate your general knowledge of the incident Syd. It's definitely conspiracy driven, but you've done some homework from a conspiracy side none-the-less.
Food for thought: Even long before 9/11, every building of WTCs stature has/had 24/7 security throughout, there are janitors, round the clock offices, and many more people who are in a building such as that at all hours. Buildings with 50,000 workers may have some empty space, but it still takes a small army of public works personnel to keep it afloat. Additionally, the Fire Department across the street from the WTC responded to an average of 12 calls PER DAY (and night) in the WTCs, responding to all sorts of calls and often using the back stairwells and other passagways not accesable to the general public. What people suggest when it comes to a controlled demolition is that every member of Firehouse 10 were in on the conspiracy as well. It simply is not feasable for a crew to wire up the WTCs for demolition without large numbers of people, including fire and police personnel, knowing about it in advance.
I still challenge anyone to produce one person who states they saw anything of that magnitude take place. Without it, the controlled demolition portion of a conspiracy cannot exist.

Your next research task, ProfWag (or NinjaPuppy): find out just who had the security contract for those buildings. You might be surprised at the answer.

You will find that it is feasible. You might like to surf the two links supplied by NinjaPuppy, particularly the eyewitness reports, and have a think.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests