Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
New 9/11 photos of WTC
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
hokum6Offline
I am one can short of a six-pack!
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Total posts: 842
Location: Location Location
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 12-02-2010 01:03    Post subject: Reply with quote

Where does it say it was empty and undergoing renovation? According to this page it had been recently renovated, the section hit housed some occupied as well as unoccupied offices. There's a list of those killed here.

The flight path doesn't strike me as being unusual either. From what I can see the plane came in from the west, did a loop round, likely explained by the amateur pilots lack of ability and experience, and hit in the south west. It's not like they looped right round and hit the east side, but even if they did you could still put that down to a lack of skill from the pilots.

Anyway, you'd think the NWO would want to hit an old part of the building so they didn't have to rebuild something that had just been decorated. Wink


Last edited by hokum6 on 12-02-2010 09:28; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile 
Zilch5Offline
Vogon Poet
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Total posts: 1580
Location: Western Sydney, Australia
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 12-02-2010 01:26    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, recently renovated? Maybe, I'll check on that...

There are some doubts as well about the flght path, but that I fear we are straying too far from the topic as it is.
Back to top
View user's profile 
CavynautOffline
Skoumed!
Joined: 10 Apr 2003
Total posts: 2000
Location: Crouch Wailing. UK.
Age: 57
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 12-02-2010 02:19    Post subject: Reply with quote

Recently renovated? Was a big target symbol painted on the outside wall at the same time by any chance?
Back to top
View user's profile 
hokum6Offline
I am one can short of a six-pack!
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Total posts: 842
Location: Location Location
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 12-02-2010 09:27    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even if the building was empty, though, I wouldn't put it down to anything more than dumb luck. The conspirators were ruthless enough to bring down several huge buildings in New York and kill thousands, but were careful to only do a little bit of damage to the Pentagon? If that were the case why even bother attacking it at all?

Anyway, the truthers crying about how it was a missile doesn't make sense on any level. Eyewitnesses saw a plane fly overheard, ATC were tracking the aircraft until its transponder was disabled, and what did those dastardly conspirators do with an entire aircraft and its plane full of passengers? Not to mention the wreckage and bodies which looked suspiciously like the aftermath of a commercial airliner crash.
Back to top
View user's profile 
McAvennie_Offline
OBE
Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Total posts: 2816
Location: Paris, France
Age: 35
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 12-02-2010 09:46    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zilch5 wrote:
But I must admit I haven't got a clue as to why someone would do this.


Destroy evidence of something? Elaborate way of going about it, admittedly.

I'm sure I read something somewhere about one of the minor WTC buildings that collapsed housing records or accounts of something that were conveniently lost.

Can't remember what though. May be misremembered conspiracy lies though as I also remember hearing/reading something about contractors from a company owned by Jeb Bush, or connected to him, being in the WTC doing maintenance work or something in the weeks before 9-11. The implication being they were planting the explosives.

A little Google on that issue didn't seemingly throw up any evidence of what I remembered hearing.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 12-02-2010 10:21    Post subject: Reply with quote

McAvennie_ wrote:


Destroy evidence of something? Elaborate way of going about it, admittedly.


Keep it simple, stupid. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile 
hokum6Offline
I am one can short of a six-pack!
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Total posts: 842
Location: Location Location
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 12-02-2010 10:26    Post subject: Reply with quote

McAvennie_ wrote:
Destroy evidence of something? Elaborate way of going about it, admittedly.


It's a ridiculous way of going about it. If that's why it happened then we are dealing with a real threat: an all-powerful group of conspirators who are unable to purchase and use paper shredders and hard disk wiping tools.

Quote:

I'm sure I read something somewhere about one of the minor WTC buildings that collapsed housing records or accounts of something that were conveniently lost.


That would be a really silly way to destroy some records, and I'd find it hard to believe that if these documents were that vital there wouldn't be backups. Would love to hear the truthers explain what they think was on these supposed records.

Quote:
I also remember hearing/reading something about contractors from a company owned by Jeb Bush, or connected to him, being in the WTC doing maintenance work or something in the weeks before 9-11. The implication being they were planting the explosives.


The largest building ever demolished was 612 feet. The WTC towers were over 1,300 feet tall. Demolitions aren't something you can do over a weekend, they take a lot of planning. The workers would have been noticed, the massive amount of explosives required would have been noticed.

The story of explosives being planted during maintenance work stems from workers in the towers saying they had been evacuated several times in the weeks before for fire drills. The idea that anyone could plan a demolition of that size in between fire drills and without anyone noticing is preposterous. There's also the fact of there being no signs of explosives and of the buildings collapsing from the point the planes hit, not from the bottom as is done in controlled demolitions.

As for the Jeb Bush thing, you may be thinking of Marvin Bush. He was on the board of directors for a company which handled some security for the buildings, but he left the company in 2000.
Back to top
View user's profile 
coalyOffline
Banned
Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Total posts: 831
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 12-02-2010 11:13    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like Hokum, me. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile 
McAvennie_Offline
OBE
Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Total posts: 2816
Location: Paris, France
Age: 35
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 12-02-2010 12:58    Post subject: Reply with quote

hokum6 wrote:

As for the Jeb Bush thing, you may be thinking of Marvin Bush. He was on the board of directors for a company which handled some security for the buildings, but he left the company in 2000.


Ah yeh, a quick Google shows that to be the case. I knew I had heard somewhere something about a Bush being involved.

Not committing one way or another on this issue, I'm just recalling stuff I remember hearing about. But just because M Bush wasn't directly connected to the company on the actual day surely isn't enough to imply no connection? If his involvement had been purely a front to get access to the building then he would not need to still be with them once the explosives or whatever had been installed.

Regarding WTC7 and the controlled explosion theory. Surely if the Govment wanted to bring that one down all they would need to do would be to release a statement saying the building was unsafe and they needed to carry out a controlled explosion to bring it down, rather than just doing it anyway and leaving themselves open to a conspiracy?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 12-02-2010 13:28    Post subject: Reply with quote

hokum6 wrote:
the massive amount of explosives required would have been noticed.


Particularly when they went *bang*!
Back to top
View user's profile 
hokum6Offline
I am one can short of a six-pack!
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Total posts: 842
Location: Location Location
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 12-02-2010 14:08    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dr_Baltar wrote:
hokum6 wrote:
the massive amount of explosives required would have been noticed.


Particularly when they went *bang*!


No you see they were stealth bombs made in the same lab that produced the holograms for disguising the missiles.
Back to top
View user's profile 
CavynautOffline
Skoumed!
Joined: 10 Apr 2003
Total posts: 2000
Location: Crouch Wailing. UK.
Age: 57
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 12-02-2010 17:23    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does anyone have an explanation for the pools of molten metal that were found in the basements of the WTC towers?
Back to top
View user's profile 
hokum6Offline
I am one can short of a six-pack!
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Total posts: 842
Location: Location Location
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 12-02-2010 21:13    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cavynaut wrote:
Does anyone have an explanation for the pools of molten metal that were found in the basements of the WTC towers?


Tackled extensively here.

Basically, there's no great mystery behind it. Truthers like to bring it up because they think it proves that explosives or thermite were used, as though that somehow negates the fact that there was no evidence of an explosion or bombs.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 12-02-2010 22:39    Post subject: Reply with quote

hokum6 wrote:
Cavynaut wrote:
Does anyone have an explanation for the pools of molten metal that were found in the basements of the WTC towers?


Tackled extensively here.

Basically, there's no great mystery behind it. Truthers like to bring it up because they think it proves that explosives or thermite were used, as though that somehow negates the fact that there was no evidence of an explosion or bombs.

Let's see:

It couldn't have been explosives because there were no "bangs" and it couldn't have been some form of thermite, because that's not really explosives.

Also:

The apparent pools of molten metal were actually caused by spontaneous combustion.

I can't say that I find those totally convincing counter arguments.
Back to top
View user's profile 
hokum6Offline
I am one can short of a six-pack!
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Total posts: 842
Location: Location Location
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 13-02-2010 10:43    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:

Let's see:

It couldn't have been explosives because there were no "bangs" and it couldn't have been some form of thermite, because that's not really explosives.


Uh...what do you find hard to believe about that? Bombs tend to make a big boom, and thermite couldn't have been used not because it's not explosives, but because you'd need a ridiculously massive amount of it and nobody has yet to suggest a way in which you could use thermite to cut across steel beams.

And we've already covered this, whether you used explosives or some kind of mystery thermite, the amount needed would be massive and there would be no way they could hide it and plan a demolition job of that size in between fire drills like the truthers have suggested. It's completely ludicrous.

Quote:

Also:

The apparent pools of molten metal were actually caused by spontaneous combustion.

I can't say that I find those totally convincing counter arguments.


Okay, well suggest another argument then. Perhaps their reasoning for the pools of metal is wrong, but it wasn't bombs for the many reasons already discussed. Once again we're back to conspiracy theories that rely on imaginary technology and completely unrealistic plots.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group