World Trade Center, (WTC)

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JCBLESS, May 18, 2007.



    Watch all of the videos,

    My question is why has nothing been done inregards to this?

    Larry Silverstein, PBS special 2002, where he admits to "pull"
    Was Paid 7 Billion Dollars for the Twin Towers.

    Explanation of WTC 2, 30 Floors in 3 seconds

    Questions into the Pentagon Boeing 747?

    9/11 Coincidences Part I

    9/11 Coincidences Part II

    9/11 Coincidences Part III

    9/11 Coincidences Part IV

    9/11 Coincidences Part V

    9/11 Coincidences Part VI

    9/11 Coincidences Part VII Enron/WorldCom

    9/11 Coincidences Part VIII

    9/11 Coincidences Part VIIII The plot Explained

    9/11 Coincidences Part Ten
  2. Silverstein's windfall....

    As we write the insurance payments are not going to reach $7.1 billion. The current situation is $4.6 billion at a maximum, although this may be subject to change (up or down) as a result of court rulings.

    And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein. The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive ($6.3 billion in April 2006, see here).

    $4.6 billion in insurance money, $6.3 billion in costs? Not such a great deal, then. What’s more, don’t imagine the insurance companies have handed over all of this money. As we write (June 2006) there are other problems:

    Read on....
  3. Pentagon/757/ entrance hole

    The statement that 77 smashed through 9 ft of reinforced concrete is a lie. Only the outer wall was reinforced condrete, the interior walls were unreinforced brick, and images can be seen at the site given below

    One assumption being made here is that Flight 77 passed through 6 reinforced concrete walls, each 18” thick, but that is nothing more than an assumption. Take a look at the above photo, and you’ll see the rings are four windows deep at the left hand side (where the exit hole is), three deep in the next ring. The ground floor, through which the plane travelled, is open plan -- internal walls only, no reason whatsoever to believe they were “18” of reinforced concrete”.

    If anyone tells you “well, they might have been”, then go search the Pentagon images. We’ve seen none from the initial shots where it’s full of debris, to the reconstruction shots afterwards, that show any sign of or structural requirement for such massive internal walls. (But don’t take our word for it, any more than you should take anyone else’s. Go look for yourself).

    We can get an idea of the walls away from the reinforced front side of the Pentagon by looking at the exit hole, though. Here’s how Ring E is described in the ACSE report:

    The perimeter exterior walls of Ring E are faced in limestone and backed with unreinforced brick infilled in the concrete frame. Nearly all remaining exterior walls are 10 in. concrete.The first story at AE Drive is brick infilled in the concrete frame, with no windows.The concrete walls have 5 by 7 ft openings for windows and include columns built in as pilasters, corresponding to column locations below, and girders reinforced within the wall.
  4. Pentagon/757/engine rotor

    Photo is the engine hub AFTER the fan blades have been sheared off by the impact....

    Based on the sizes of the person standing next to the debris and other objects in the photographs that we can use for comparison, it has been estimated that the disk is approximately 25 to 30 inches (63.5 to 76.2 cm) across. Obviously, this piece is far smaller than the maximum engine diameter of 6 feet (1.8 m) or more leading many to draw the conclusion that the item is not from a 757 engine. That conjecture causes conspiracy theorists to believe that a much smaller vehicle must have struck the Pentagon instead.
  5. How many times must these conspiracy theorist moonbats be debunked and made fools of before they get it?
    Jesus Christ people, study some charts or something.
  6. What is it to you? What are you afraid of?

  7. Im afraid of the number of brainwashed Americans who get their information from uncredible sources. The amount of garbage people believe from the net is unreal.
  8. "Im afraid of the number of brainwashed Americans who get their information from uncredible sources. The amount of garbage people believe from the net is unreal."

    I too am amazed. Having the internet is like taking a peek into all the "cults" that have always been around but now (more) like minded people can gather together and exhanges rants. In the past I would rationalize the garbage that with a bit more education people will wise up, au contraire, seems the whole world has gone mad.

    Does it bother me? No, but I worry about my kids, keeping them on the fast track to think for themselves and stay away from the garbage.

    Oh yea, I am judge and jury of garbage, if what you read doesn't advance you in your job, enrich your life, ie, arts, faith, etc put it on the back burner.
  9. pattersb

    pattersb Guest

    The nerve this topic once set afire has been deadened. Now, it's an amusing mental-carwreck you can't look away from.

    Imagine, as Americans head off to war, their fellow "Americans" concoct and disseminate this propaganda; Americans were behind the hit so they could lead us into a war to profit from increased oil prices and contracts to defense contractors.

    It would have been genius if Al-Queda was somehow involved in propagating this story, (talk about sapping the will of your enemy), However, Bin Laden had already admitted to the attack and he doesn't deserve that much respect.

    Too bad Sir Alfred Hitchcock is no longer, he would have been inspired by such a plotline. We should get an incredible James Bond flick out of it at the very least. (pray Oliver Stone doesn't ...)
  10. I was under the impression bin laden never admitted to involvement, at all, just supported and condoned the attacks.

    Too bad i dont understand arabic, maybe id get the lowdown on that one.
    And your sources are reliable, speak arabic?

    Any arabic speakers, did bin laden actually admit direct involvement?
    So much for rubbish on the internet........
    #10     May 18, 2007