Re: Photo of WTC
- From: "AllYou!" <Idaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:01:45 -0400
"super" <super@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:12a1mha2vejtea9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well not really. The evidence shows that there were multiple levels to what went on that day. There are a number of details people don't know until they begin to really research the details.
From what sources?
Apparently
Apparently? Is that your source for actual facts?
Building 7 and several floors of WTC has LOTS of records, data, and information. These computers, files etc. couldnt just be left in the rubble, it needed to be disintegrated. Read the early descriptions of what the area was like when the towers had fallen. It wasnt 200 stories of concrete,
That's because the building weren't made of concrete. Is this another example of your research into the details?
it was almost entirely reduced to dust. If the buildings just "fell" there would be almost 50 stories of rubble standing there unless you believe it would drop 100 stories into the earth...
Is this another example of your details? As large as the buildings looked when standing there, the volume as defined by the outer walls is mostly air, and so when totally demolished, the collased volume would not be 50 stories high. Can you support your allegation that it would be? After all, you did the reasearch, so where is it?
And where did all the missing debris go? How did the gobament get 40 stories of debris off the site in a matter of hours?
Building 7 in particular had ALOT of offices that housed sensitive documents about many different goverment agencies.
IMO
No, NO, NO! No opinions. You said you did lots of research, and so I want facts.
The other part that has been alleged yet I can't confirm
AGAIN! You said you did the research, so where are your facts as opposed to idle speculation?
As far as kennedy they have already confirmed a total of 5 or more shots through analysis and so much additional evidence,
That's another unsupported allegation. You've made a point to tell everyone how ignorant they've been by not looking into the facts, so where's your backup for this crazy idea?
but to answer the point on how explosive planting could be done at WTC.
Where's the answer?
The World Trade Center complex came under the control of a private owner for the first time only in mid-2001, having been built and managed by the Port Authority as a public resource. The complex was leased to a partnership of Silverstein Properties and Westfield America. 1 2 The new controllers acquired a handsome insurance policy for the complex including a clause that would prove extremely valuable: in the event of a terrorist attack, the partnership could collect the insured value of the property, and be released from their obligations under the 99-year lease. 3
Here is a good log of what went down
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html
and here is a summary
To put these events in perspective, imagine that a person leases an expensive house, and immediately takes out an insurance policy covering the entire value of the house and specifically covering bomb attacks. Six weeks later two bombs go off in the house, separated by an hour. The house burns down, and the lessor immediately sues the insurance company to pay him twice the value of the house, and ultimately wins. The lessor also gets the city to dispose of the wreckage, excavate the site, and help him build a new house on the site.
All really fun, but where's the evidence of how anyone could've planted the explosives?
Likewise, the Pentagon. American Airlines flight 77 went somewhere. If not the Pentagon, then where? And if the Pentagon, why does it matter to anyone how much damage was done? There was no point in sending a missile, a missile that had to have some discoverable point of origin, when just crashing the plane into the side of the building would accomplish what the theorists posit was the main purpose of the conspiracy, regardless of the amount of actual damage done.
There are some very interesting theories on the 4 planes from that day with a lot of facts to back them up.
But all you've posted here are allegations of facts, with no support, and sheer speculation. Where are the actual facts? You've done the research, right?
Without going to far into detail, it involved 2 of the flights actually being cancelled (the FAA lists them as having NOT been flown that day)
That's a lie too.
I just can't take more of the same lies and speculation.
[snip]
.
- References:
- Photo of WTC
- From: jupiter49
- Re: Photo of WTC
- From: QuiGon
- Re: Photo of WTC
- From: Lyford
- Re: Photo of WTC
- From: super
- Photo of WTC
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Good Political Ad
- Next by Date: Re: Photo of WTC
- Previous by thread: Re: Photo of WTC
- Next by thread: Re: Photo of WTC
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|