canada.com — Now that Rosie O'Donnell is trying to table it on The View, I guess we can talk about it here.First, a news quiz: If, some time after the collapse of World Trade Center towers 1 and 2, a 47-storey office building in a major American city also came crashing to the ground, do you think you'd know about it?
Apr 2, 2007 View in Crawl 4
moeblaksbrotherApr 2, 2007
Whats with the veritable "rivers" of molten metal under WTC 7? Wasn't it aluminum from the plane crash? Thats right, tower 7 wasn't hit by a plane. Lava fairies me thinks?
bennyxboApr 2, 2007
"the government used the opportunity to implement a previously engineered security contingency plan to demolish the building using previously rigged explosive devices and then in their typical, overly secretive style, denies and ignores the implosion."Uh ya, thats probably what happened, I'll go to sleep now... even though the last man out of the North Tower, a recognized American hero - William Rodriguez, said he heard bombs going off in the basement before the plane even struck !... and I'll just go back to sleep even though pilots, who regularly flew the planes used, say it has to be an inside job ( Google Russ Wittenberg ) because the level of precision of the attacks was to just high to be carried out by those men.Was it a "previously engineered security contingency plan" that made NORAD to fail to shoot down any planes, and let them strike 3 out of 4 targets?The length people will go to when they are too scared to look at the truth. I learned my lesson; we all need to learn it sometime to move foreward.
joeyjesusApr 2, 2007
PLEASE! Don't bother Roger (and the rest of his ilk <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_skepticism">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_skepticism</a> ) with facts.They're busy living in denial, thinking they know more about demolitions than Danny Jowenko.
joeyjesusApr 2, 2007
macweirdo - your first questions can only be answered by a thorough and independent investigation, so I'm glad you are joining us (through your post) in calling for one.However, when you ask: "wouldn't the damage from the plane crashes be enough? The buildings didn't have to collapse - the damage to our national psyche had already been done well before then."I think part of this whole plot (in my speculative theory) was getting rid of the asbestos nightmare that was the twin towers. Some estimates put the cost of remediating the asbestos at over a billion dollars. Couple that with the insurance money Silverstein claimed (and is fighting for more) and you've got a $2 billion dollar + incentive to bring down those towers illegitimately.
do39Apr 2, 2007
Thank you.It was in terrorstorm by Alex Jones. Someone posted on here before but it was old. Alex Jones claims that blair was heading for certain defeat (he wasnt) and that the bombings happen right on time (they happened two months after the election).<a class="user" href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm</a> I get annoyed at stuff like this because it just comes across and childish and tin-foil hat stuff. I do not think this reflects 9/11 as a whole but it does do a lot of damage to your cause.
rogerstrongApr 2, 2007
> Like every other image of WTC7, they show no fires or very small fires> and extremely minimal damage.Well, ONLY if you don't count all the images and videos of WTC7 showing major fires and major damage.....<a class="user" href="http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm">http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm</a>
Closed AccountApr 3, 2007
That's exactly what I think happened. They used the attacks to cover this secondary crime. They may have well known the attacks were on the way anyway... especially the CIA or Secret Service tennents. It's pretty much acknowledged, all conspiracies aside for a moment, that the whitehouse knew about the attacks beforehand.