9/11 Part Omega

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Rapier, Jun 6, 2008.

  1. Rapier

    Rapier Registered Member V.I.P. Lifetime

    Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Quote:
    History

    Controlled demolition hypothesis proponents cite mainstream news reports on the day of the attacks that suggested explosions and secondary devices.[6][7] Journalists and experts commenting on the events as they happened speculated that the World Trade Center collapses were caused by intentionally planted explosives. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings said "Anybody who ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down"[8] While watching footage of the collapse of WTC 7, CBS News anchor Dan Rather said "For the third time today, its reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down."[9] Some of these suggestions would later be retracted or revised. In a notable example, the Albuquerque Journal quoted Dr. Van D. Romero, an engineer who said that the collapses looked "too methodical" and that "some explosive devices inside ... caused the towers to collapse," speculating that the collision of the planes into the towers was a diversionary attack intended to attract emergency personnel to the scene, followed by the detonation of "a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points" of the towers as the primary attack.[10] He soon withdrew this assessment[11] and later said he had been misquoted: "I only said that that's what it looked like."[12]
    Engineers were in fact initially surprised by the collapses[13][14][15] and at least one considered explosives as a possible explanation.[16] The broad outlines of an explanation that did not involve such explosives quickly emerged, however, and took its current shape in the 2005 NIST report.[17] [18] It has come to be known as "the official account" among proponents of controlled demolition.[19] The hypothesis has gained support in part because engineers were unable to explain how the falling sections passed through the undamaged building beneath, bringing the towers down quickly and completely.[20]

    I certainly understand what this means. We have a virus that must be acknowledged and neutralized.


    Quote:
    The hypothesis has gained support in part because engineers were unable to explain how the falling sections passed through the undamaged building beneath, bringing the towers down quickly and completely.
     

  2. MenInTights

    MenInTights not a plastic bag

    If it was brought down by terrorist opperatives, why even crash the planes? Simplicity is they key with plans like this, imo. Either crash the planes or plant explosives. I don't see why do both. Also, I remember OBL issuing a statement a few weeks after the attack saying that they mever expected the towers to fall, but praise to allah they did.
     
  3. Rapier

    Rapier Registered Member V.I.P. Lifetime

    Would anyone believe terrorists were able to access the three buildings to plant "explosives?" The buildings had to be attacked externally.

    What could possibly coerce Americans to participate in a false flag operation? The fact that they were sacrificing a few to protect many from a larger threat?

    Think outside the envelope.
     
  4. MenInTights

    MenInTights not a plastic bag

    I find this stuff interesting, but I really don't understand what you're talking about. Sorry.
     
  5. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    If you check out the source of that line from Wikipedia, you'll find that it says:

    "[Dr. Seffen of Cambridge University] added that his calculations showed this was a 'very ordinary thing to happen' and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings."

     
  6. Rapier

    Rapier Registered Member V.I.P. Lifetime

    In rides Dr. Seffen who puts the explanation of the WTC collapses together when American engineers were unable to connect the dots. Dr. Seffen put together the WTC Humpty Dumpty all by his lonesome.




    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    Humpty Dumpty

    Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall;
    Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
    All the King's horses
    And all the King's men
    Couldn't put Humpty together again!

    Humpty Dumpty
    Sentado en un muro.
    Humpty Dumpty
    Se ha caído muy duro.
    Todos los caballeros
    Y jinetes del rey,
    Fueron a levantarlo
    Y no pudieron con él.


    or....
    Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall;
    Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
    Threescore men and threescore more,
    Can't place Humpty Dumpty as he was before.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2008

Share This Page