Questions on the collapse of 3 buildings...

[Guest rattler]

Yes, Mitch but only when it involves the deaths of thousands of their voters to achieve that end (not talking about wars of course). I don't believe that those who run the US are the "BIG EVIL"

--------------------

There's a great deal to be said for elitism, so long as it's only a barrier to incompetence and not to ability (from the writings of L.E.Modesitt jr)

   

Mitch Cronin Posted: Nov 17 2009, 11:13 AM 

Donating Member

QUOTE (rattler @ Nov 17 2009, 12:04 PM)

(not talking about wars of course) 

Why not? What's the difference? They lied to go after Iraq and how many Americans have died because of that? Why don't they count?

One would be premeditated murder, the other would depend upon the outcome of the war. I don't believe that those running the US would be guilty of premeditated murder when it comes to their own citizens (voters). That would not only be evil but also stupid, just imagine what would happen if they were found out.

How about you tell me why you think they would commit such evil?

[Mitch Cronin]

Firstly, let's keep it clear, please, that I haven't said that I think they did. But if they did, I'd imagine there would be several answers to "why?"... mostly having to do with power over the scared masses, and profit.

I cannot understand why that question serves as a barrier to examination of the evidence. So what if we don't know why yet? Surely a proper investigation would uncover the truth about the motive for whoever was involved, don't you think?

If I could come up with a convincing answer for a motive, would that alone make you look a little harder at what we've been told vs. what available evidence exists?

I will say that I think they could have. ...and further, I think there is just too much that doesn't add up, to not want a full and proper investigation. If you do as someone here suggested, and "follow the money", it leads to startling revelations about who has indeed profited from the mess of the last 8 years. Even from the very beginning... did you know about the "put options" for AA and Boeing that Deutsch bank is said to have cashed in on, for instance?

These were crime scenes, and most of the evidence was all swiftly destroyed, hidden, or ignored. Why? The only CVR they found (that alone should be surprising, if what one video claimed -I don't know if it's true? - that the other three would be the first and only so far, to have crashed in North America, and not be found) the FBI said the contents weren't anything interesting and kept that 'nothing interesting' in the black hole everything else disappeared into. Why would they do that? Why were 9 of the hi-jackers later found alive and well and victims of 'mistaken identity', or 'identity theft'? Why would a Muslim extremist, known to the FBI for his extremist position, and content with becoming a martyr, take on a false identity of another Muslim, known to the FBI for his extremist beliefs?

My memory sucks Rattler, but I've seen so many good questions raised... it boggles my mind that a full, independent investigation isn't being demanded. I think it's criminal to ignore so many signs of so much wrong.

[Guest woxof]

Ignore the Troll. No matter what answers you come up with, he'll come up with more unanswereble ones. Deutsche Bank put options, hijackers found alive, etc. Ignore the Troll.

TROLL SPRAY FOR THE REAL ONE>>>MITCH CRONIN.

[Kip Powick]

Not that he needs it but...in defence of Mitch..

WOXOF..I don’t know how long you have been on this forum but I can assure you that Mitch has a long life here and is not a “Troll”…

(wikipedia--In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion)

Mitch has been on this forum a very long time and it is no secret that he has a very inquistive mind…re-many of this OT postings. I see nothing wrong with that and if one does not want to follow a thread, one does not have to. All of us at one time or another have posted OT...so what???

Attempting to garner information/opinion from anyone on this forum is his right, as is it yours.

For you to label a member in good standing as “Troll” almost indicates to me that you feel that the individual is “beneath you” and illustrates your frustration at not being able to give a definitive answer to some questions so that you can look upon yourself as the one who gave "closure" to a subject.

Rest assured Mitch is a well rounded individual,a professionsl AME and for your info one of only two persons I invited to meet me on my “last” flight. Further I may not agree with many aspects of his life decisions or his topics for discussion but he is entitled to the courtesy we all expect from the individuals who frequent this forum.

I would seriously suggest you delete your posting and in doing so I will also delete mine.

[Guest woxof]

Hmmm.....this is where the idea of my post came from in response to a post of mine about a month ago...

http://forum.aeforum.net/index.php?showtop...0entry1544375

I would think that if someone started suggesting this particular conspiracy theory at a get together of 9/11 victims families, they would be fortunate to only end up in the hospital. To throw out the suggestions of their government being involved I'm sure is making their pain that much worse.

To be called a troll, as the individual you are defending did to me, is really not a huge deal from my end. I survived O.K. I'm sure he will as well.

[Mitch Cronin]

Thanks Kip.

Woxof.... you and I have locked horns without even knowing each other. My perspective is much different than yours. Our growth, to date (and I note from a much earlier posting of yours that you'd be somewhere around 28 or 29 yrs, please correct me if I'm wrong?) has likely been as different as two individuals usually get while living on the same continent and otherwise similar environments. ... Your reality is not mine, and mine is not yours, can you accept that and carry on in a civil manner? I can, and will do my best.

[chockalicious]

It looks like there seems to be some issues with perspective on an internet message board, hopefully better social skills are shown in the real world.

[J.O.]

Real wisdom lies in knowing that none of us has all the answers, and that the only stupid question is the one you're too afraid to ask.

[Guest rattler]

Ignore the Troll. No matter what answers you come up with, he'll come up with more unanswereble ones. Deutsche Bank put options, hijackers found alive, etc. Ignore the Troll.

TROLL SPRAY FOR THE REAL ONE>>>MITCH CRONIN.

Mitch is def. not a troll. Sometimes I think those who accuse others of being a troll should instead look into a mirror.

Mitch and I are engaging in a difference of opinion, from which we may learn something new ......... or not........... but nevertheless of benefit.........

[MURRAY]

"Rest assured Mitch is a well rounded individual,a professionsl AME..."

More importantly, he plays a Strat.

[Mitch Cronin]

..... twang....

[Guest woxof]

Your reality is not mine, and mine is not yours, can you accept that and carry on in a civil manner? I can, and will do my best.

Sounds like a plan. Have a nice evening and enjoy the star-watching.

[J.O.]

Next week's installment of The Fifth Estate will run a piece on 9/11 conspiracy theorists in the US. Should make for interesting viewing. If one of the guys in the highlight package is any indication, it may do much to enhance the "nut factor" impressions of many who think these theories are baseless in fact. I will be tuning in anyways. CBC, 10:00 pm EST Tuesday.

[DEFCON]

We cannot rely on the mainstream 'free press' to present an informed factual and unbiased story.

[inchman]

Surely a proper investigation would uncover the truth about the motive for whoever was involved, don't you think?

I find it interesting that some consider it conceivable that many thousands of people have been involved in a coverup with virtually no chinks in the armour for more than 8 years, then also consider it conceivable that some kind of official enquiry would cause one of those thousands to suddenly expose some hidden "truth".

Don't think so.

[DEFCON]

"I find it interesting that some consider it conceivable that many thousands of people have been involved in a coverup with virtually no chinks in the armour for more than 8 years, then also consider it conceivable that some kind of official enquiry would cause one of those thousands to suddenly expose some hidden "truth"."

Some might believe all of that, but what about 'Building #7?

I find it interesting that some consider it conceivable that the facts, as presented, would support the quickly publicized conclusion that Building #7 fell as a result of relatively minor damage received consequent to the collapse of the other two structures?

Geez, the legal system has convicted many an innocent man in the belief the evidence provided supported said conviction? The ‘Blue Ribbon’ Panels convened to study this event reached their conclusion in quite a hurry…didn’t they? In doing so, they in fact dodged giving any consideration to the many serious issues that arose following.

Like everyone else here, I don't know what happened for certain, but I do think the initial questions Mitch posed are genuine, serious and deserve proper consideration. Blindly accepting GW's Panels rushed conclusions can't be sound.

[inchman]

I wasn't passing judgment on what the truth was.... I don't really care what anyone thinks about what happened.

My point is that an inquiry is not going expose anything more than what has already gotten out. Nobody's going to take the stand and say "Oh... I forgot to mention this very important fact for the past 8 years".

(Edited for clarity)

[Moon The Loon]

"I find it interesting that some consider it conceivable that many thousands of people have been involved in a coverup with virtually no chinks in the armour for more than 8 years, then also consider it conceivable that some kind of official enquiry would cause one of those thousands to suddenly expose some hidden "truth"."

Some might believe all of that, but what about 'Building #7?

I find it interesting that some consider it conceivable that the facts, as presented, would support the quickly publicized conclusion that Building #7 fell as a result of relatively minor damage received consequent to the collapse of the other two structures?

Geez, the legal system has convicted many an innocent man in the belief the evidence provided supported said conviction? The ‘Blue Ribbon’ Panels convened to study this event reached their conclusion in quite a hurry…didn’t they? In doing so, they in fact dodged giving any consideration to the many serious issues that arose following.

Like everyone else here, I don't know what happened for certain, but I do think the initial questions Mitch posed are genuine, serious and deserve proper consideration. Blindly accepting GW's Panels rushed conclusions can't be sound.

Without knowing the structure of Bldg. 7, it seems to me that if you knock out the supports, gravity will do the rest.

There was incredible damage done underground which translated to areas around the twin towers. At one point, there was a danger that the East River would break through and flood the entire NYC subway system. Neither of the twin towers nor most other buildings in that part of lower Manhattan were built on dedicated foundations.

For me, this is a plausible explanation of the loss of the other building.

Then again, I don't believe Oswald was the sole shooter

[Moon The Loon]

I wasn't passing judgment on what the truth was.... I don't really care what anyone thinks about what happened.

My point is that an inquiry is not going to get any deeper than what has already gotten out... and that is.... nothing

Eleven years after the original Warren Commission report, Gerald Ford commissioned a second investigation which came to basically the same conclusions as the original report, notwithstanding the deaths of many of the original witnesses in and around Dealey Plaza in November, 1963.

BTW, for those who don't know, Gerald Ford was part of the original Warren Commission investigating team.

[Mitch Cronin]

My point is that an inquiry is not going expose anything more than what has already gotten out. Nobody's going to take the stand and say "Oh... I forgot to mention this very important fact for the past 8 years".

...and I wasn't suggesting anyone would.

I was suggesting, and still hope, that a serious inquiry would table all of the known apparent paradoxs and puzzles, and answer what could be answered. ....I believe if such an inquiry were to take place, it would soon be realized by those doing the examining, that a number of very puzzling factors have had the ability to readily answer them either destroyed or removed from view.... they would then have to ask why, and, in the context of all they then had before them, examine the answers....

[deicer]

This was released yesterday. Spooky...

http://911.wikileaks.org/files/index.html

[J.O.]

There are thousands of messages on that site. Can you give a hint as to a time frame to look at, or the text in the messages that raises suspicions?

[inchman]

For anyone who wants to see the official version with an explanation of what really happened to building 7, check this out.

Basically, building 7 and fell for much the same reason that the twin towers fell... metal failure due to heat from a fire that burned most of the day and couldn't be extinguished for pretty obvious reasons. The fires just weren't as intense, so it took longer to fall.

Of course, the consipirationists (new word) said that it shouldn't have fallen as a result of just being close to the WTC towers, and I suppose they're right, except for that conveniently missing part about the fire burning all day long.

(Edited: Removed fuel tank reference after re-reading report).

[Say Again, Over!]

Very interesting reading! And I think Mitch will get in that document the answers to his questions. Thay even explored the idea of explosives being used in a bunch of different scenarios.

This being the official version, it doesn't sound too much like a cover-up.

[Mitch Cronin]

I'm very puzzled... EVERY time I click on that link from Inchman, I get the following message box: "Internet Explorer has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience."

I tried it twice with the same result, so I closed all other windows, fired up IE again, and got the same result... So I went into task manager and booted out all traces of IE, then fired it up again... same result... so I rebooted, let it go through it's painful processes of mice running on little wheels, that those Mac folks don't ever see... started IE one more time, came back here to try the link again.... same result.

In any case, I'm eager to see if it's the same I have read before... the trouble with their explanation is that the fire couldn't have been hot enough to have weakened the steel sufficiently for it to fail.... not without help anyway. All of that is available on the firefighters site... ... as well, there have been plenty of other similarly built building fires, at least one lasting longer than 24 hrs. None of them fell, so what was different about the fire in building 7? What explanation is there for that? ...and how can it be explained that it evidently failed in just the right way to come down within it's own footprint, as if it had been "imploded" by demolition experts? ...and why was Julliani told before-hand that the building was going to come down and he'd better leave?

With those, rather obvious, suspicious looking immediate questions to answer, why weren't they investigated and answered?

Surely any routine police investigation would have had a few cops thinking something like "Hey!? Why would this particular building fall down after a fire, when all these other ones haven't? Why did it fall so perfectly? Why do all these firefighters and other "first responders" say for sure they heard explosions? How can the incredible heat found beneath the debris of all 3 buildings be explained without thermite? Who are the tenants?... etc..

No?....

How can anyone not think those questions should be answered?

Oh that's right, we all saw it on CNN... it was those 19 Arab terrorists ...or, hang on, how many were there? How do we know? Oh, we found their passports. That's right... How many passports were found of other people on these domestic flights? We didn't find the "black-box", but we found the passport of one of the terrorists. Who owns CNN anyway?