here's another view: that huge hole is what's left of wtc6. among the occupants of the bldg was the us govt's bureau of tobacco and firearms and us costums.
literally explosive emt witness testimony about wtc6 prior to collapse: http://killtown.911review.org/wtc6.html
full interview. this is really powerful: http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-rescuer-saw-explosions-inside-wtc.html
As I stated, there is no need for conspiracies nowdays, it's just too easy when individuals like you are the "smart" ones. Anyone who takes the time and read the document, which is a standard SEC document (40-60 of which get filed every year) would understand. The amendment to it a year later is the real kicker, just hilarious. But you won't go do that and neither will 95% of the people, does not matter whether they are full blown conservatives who love Bush or full blown conspiracy nut liberals. They are too busy applying themselves to the label they have undertaken, who cares about the truth when the stake of conservative vs liberal is on the line. The reactions I received only helps me prove my point, which is WAY over your heads. Because it is not like US government is ever capable of something like this, it's not like there have been political scandals almost every decade of significant & questionable nature, as well as very similiar strategies at the brink of US involvement in World War I and World War II. Nah, it's always a "mistake" or an "oversight" or a rogue act or a mix-up. And somehow these strange and unintended acts always go to serve some mercantilistic or imperialistic purpose, sometimes executed with almost 100% accuracy and sometimes not. As for how institutions & bureaucracy can be manipulated & controlled by those in power, well, I guess actual experience in the organizations would speak best. It is done almost the same way in corporations, after a certain size, the institution is simply vulnerable like that. Watch "The Wire", that is one of David Simon's themes. Caution: the show does require a certain minimum level of intelligence, as well as an open mind. P.S. There are many other documents out there that point in the same direction. Many. From the memos that were circulating in the highest levels of the government to the Mossad reports that they were confronted by the FBI and told to go home when they were following the hijackers. P.P.S. Yes I do talk to retarded girls but only if they have no gag reflex.
this post of yours proves u are an incredible hypocrite. i never swallowed everything i came across about 911 just to back up my case, EVER. on the other hand u did exactly that on every instance. that links u keep posting about popular mechanics obviously cannot be relied upon after i pointed out it lied straight out of the gate in its opening paragraph, and it's govt/fema backed, yet u continue to post it like it was the holy grail. lemme tell u something else, all that's been written there has been thoroughly debunked and i have the links to prove it. i dont have an agenda like yours to humiliate and attack every poster that doubts the official story and i will refrain myself from posting the links demolishing that site but if u keep insisting to back your claims with that crap i will. and just because there are thousands of inconsistencies and many curiosities that raise a lot of question doesn't mean the story has to become too complicated. infact it is a pretty straightforward case. it's the official conspiracy story that becomes extremely complicated if scientifically analyzed not the inside job proposition, infact to back it up u have to rationalize every improbability in the same fashion hard core religious freaks rationalize the existence of god.
LOL..... FYI - I've never even read the PM article, so I have no idea what you're talking about.... And how do you know that I've swallowed EVERY thing that I've read supporting the official version? You don't now, do you? The truth is, I haven't.. And you think I'm a hypocrite? By labelling me, you've just exposed yourself for who you really are - it's called projection of self image in psychology books.... Here's what I find hilarious too - since the NIST, FEMA reports, etc were govt backed they can't be relied on. So who does them then? Private money, right? So what's their agenda then? Can they be trusted? Do you see how there's no end to it? It's a purely circular line of reasoning..... Regarding your remark about rationalizing - it's a matter of opinion as to which version is to be believed. You say the official version is not to be believed. I say the CT version is not to be believed, and to believe it YOU must have a zealousness equal to the religious freaks out there. So go ahead and post links, if you want.... But let me ask you a simple question - Ct'ers have doubts about fire having the ability to bring down a steel framed building, right? So why is it code to have fire proofing on the trusses in the case of WTC 1&2. Why, Bit? Do you think it's because insurance companies and underwriters lab and fire investigators realize the threat to steel framed buildings, or do you have another explanation?
u have shown that trough your relentless posting of links that have not been honest in their assessment and analysis and by calling everyone that raises questions about the official story, dipshit, lunatics, etc. without ever receiving any provocation. u know the evidence was tampered with and very little was left to examine yet u defend the nist statement it was enough when not only it's obvious it wasn't but that destroying evidence is a repulsive criminal act. and yet u dont criticize this fact. and of course u have swallowed it whole: u just don't accept any criticism of the official story: it is consequential, cause=effect. govt story=all truth, govt doubters=always wrong. u went trough serious lengths to dismiss skeptics. see, calling people hypocrites when they behave like hypocrites it's not hypocrisy, u proved to be an hypocrite by acting the way i described: accusing others of the very same things u are guilty of. this is the most absurd of your tactics, u just cannot quote the official lines to silence your critics when the official story itself is the target of criticisms; it's like stating that the very words uttered in the report cannot be challenged because the report itself say they represent the truth. cant u see it is completely irrational? and what circular logic? this is your problem, u have to find credible independent sources on your own, and if u don't, u don't have a case. it is not anymore a matter of opinion, there's ample compelling evidence to dismiss the official story as a fraud. u can still have doubts but u cant continue to defend the obvious deception by the govt, the multiple coverups and lies, the extremely superficial investigation and massive obstruction to access evidence and witnesses. u even defended the nist when it changed the reasons for the collapse from pancake to the ludicrous 5 half pages of rushed conclusions not supported by evidence. nist didn't retrieve it because it realized it was an absurd proposition, but because they were fiercely criticized by many scientists and engineers and forced to drop it. yet u praised them for having conducted a good research after coming to contact with new evidence when this is not the case at all. it all boils down to probability and u keep searching for the most improbable explanation to support your views: eg: hundreds of witnesses hearing explosions in the towers, wtc7 and now also wtc6. scores of visual evidence highlighting all the very same characteristics of a demolition, including the exact signatures stamped on many videos and photos [wtc7 vertical blasts grid, cutter charges, lobby blown up, etc] yet, u dismiss all this powerful evidence as not important and attribute it to generators exploding. u may still not be sure hundred% those were explosives going off but u have to admit there's an extremely high probablity they infact are bombs and not generators blowing up. u know the odds they are infact generators going ka-boom is infinitesimally small, yet u believe that and dont think about it no more. this is rationalizing: searching for something just for the sake of supporting your beliefs even if makes little sense and it could be better explained by everything the evidence say. another non-starter here: that doesn't mean a building can collapse on its own simply because there's no adequate fireproofing. it's one of the many precautions to make sure the structure is as safe as possible from a myriad of thing, not necessarily a complete collapse. it just aint enough to imply that insulation is all that matter in keeping a building standing. that is a preposterous thing to say.
Again, it's your OPINION that the links , etc aren't honest in their assessment of 9/11. And all because YOU don't want to believe it. Your beliefs mean nothing, son, it's what you can prove. And here's the problem , at it's heart, that I have with so many of the CT'ers claims - I find the level of poor investigation, poor science, mis quoting, partial quoting, quote mining,etc to be indicative of someone with a purely political motive - ie, it is my belief that they are so against the Iraq war, that any lie is ok to tell - the end justifies the means. As you yourself admit, Prof Jones work is pretty shabby. In my opinion, they're all shabby. The only slick thing about the movement is the use of lots of utube videos, since we as humans are much more affected emotionally through visual input, and emotions have the ability to suspend critical thinking........ Poor answer regarding the fire proofing.... So what are they protecting against, if it isn't to protect the buildings from collapsing/failing? Safe as possible from what? Think about 1&2. Why would there be insulation on the trusses, specifically? Would it prevent fire from spreading? No, the trusses are an open web. What explanation do you have? ANd who said that insulation is the only thing holding up the building? You trying to put words in my mouth? How dishonest if you are....
why don't you post the documents? Ok, seeing that it is way over my head, please give me the condensed version. Just what are accusing of whom? All I want to know is if you are part of the lunatic fringe suggesting the whole thing was orchestrated by the US gov. It's funny, a variety of the wacko's on this thread present as evidence the no-fly warnings to high government officials just prior to 911........ EVIDENCE OF WHAT? That perhaps, by chance, the Billions and Billions and Billions of dollars spent on intelligence may have actually produced actionable intelligence and not just another false positive..... ? Did people within the government know if advance? CLEARLY. Again, EVERYONE KNEW THE WTC WAS A TARGET, many people KNEW it was inevitably going to get hit again. Just like many people KNOW that it isn't a question of whether the US will be hit by a nuke, but when. Am I now part of the conspirators of the future nuking the US?