BadComrade wrote:Skatingbasser,

The Anti-Flag comment was (I thought) a pretty obvious reference to you and the "flame war" we had, not "reuse" of it as an insult. I was simply comparing Clocker Bob to you, in the respect that you "believe" in the same way that Clocker Bob "believes"... in a cute, naive kinda way. I assumed anyone who new about that thread would have gotten the reference, but I guess you guys didn't. *shrug*

oh. Oh! Was that it?

Thanks for the walk-through... it had completely flown over my head.

clocker bob wrote:[ There were still internal charges in the Murrah building. If anything, there's more glaring evidence disproving that official story than WTC1, 2, and 7.

Clocker Bob, what was the motivation for the OC bombing? What was it designed to accomplish?

Andrew L. wrote:

clocker bob wrote:[ There were still internal charges in the Murrah building. If anything, there's more glaring evidence disproving that official story than WTC1, 2, and 7.

Clocker Bob, what was the motivation for the OC bombing? What was it designed to accomplish?

Hah; I swear I'm not hovering over this thread, but I just watched the White Sox lose and ate dinner and had to check and see if I had made new enemies...

I think the OKC bombing could have served a number of purposes.

It might have been a good way to destroy records connected to the Waco Branch Davidian slaughter and also Clinton's Mena, Arkansas Cocaine Contra airport; they were allegedly stored in the Murrah building.

The Counter-Terrorism Bill was signed into law four days later, part of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security family tree.

It may have been a good way to generate more anti-gun ownership hysteria via a frame up of militia freaks.

It may have just been shock treatment to the American population's collective psyche, a little test to see how we would respond. We cried for government to come save us. The ruling class liked that. They don't like it when government comes knocking for taxes or messes with their free trade or tells them not to fuck with the environment, but they'll give Big Gov't all the funding it needs to surveil us and tell us that our civil rights are interfering with their ability to protect us.

Other motives have been suggested. As usual, the internet will shock you, make you laugh, and occasionally piss you off if you go searching for those theories.

I just know that the fertilizer bomb didn't snap those pillars, and some people with eight billion times more explosives expertise agree with me.

BadComrade wrote: I really didn't want to respond to any more of your posts because they're just so easy to shut down...

Then what's taking you so long?

Kidding, really- come back when you like; if your responses are great, they'll be great tomorrow or in two weeks. But you do understand that proclaiming that my posts are easily dispensed with and actually dispensing with my posts in an easy manner are two dramatically different things, right?

BadComrade wrote:Oh, and I'd like to take this time to fully disclose that I have a loose connection to the FBI... maybe that means nothing I say can be trusted.

Only you can answer that. Do you feel like your judgement has been compromised by your friendships?

I wouldn't worry about reporting me or my IP address to some watch list, by the way ( and I'm not saying you would do that, I'm just speaking rhetorically ); any fearsome oligarchy better have me on their lists in good standing already, or I'm either not working hard enough or the battle really is all over.

warmowski wrote:Ah, tinfoil. Dare I risk the shiny helmet of shame?

Having eyes, ears and a television, I must, but only by asking a very fair question.

I think it is fair and far from enfoilment to ask why and how WTC 7 was demolished on purpose by its owner.

We should base this question on no other observation that the building's owner went on television (2002, PBS, "America Rebuilds") and plainly stated he and FDNY demolished WTC 7 on purpose.

Larry Silverstein, the putative owner of WTC 7 said of it "we...made that decision to pull and watched the building collapse" ("pull" is demolition parlance for implosive demolition.)

I saw and heard him say this myself. Why here, give it a try.

So nobody else wants to know why he said that or how it was done?

-r

It seems that he was talking about abandoning a building that was burning out of control like the fire chief said. That doesn't fly with you? After everyone watched the two towers collapse with hundreds of firemen in them, you don't see it reasonable for people to say, "fuck this empty office building." Would you ask people to go in there?
and-
Does it make sense that firemen would set up a demolition of a building that was burning out of their control? Do you know how involved demolishing a skyscraper is? I know that firemen aren't trained to do it, and those who are don't do it in less than a day -while the building is on fire.

Building 7 is appropriately a footnote in the overall catastrophe. It wasn’t important then because no one died in there.

Ask a fireman if he was ever trained to raze a skyscraper -
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html

Fuck All this!


When are these people gonna get a documentary together about the real Killers at Columbine, which was obviously the work of the crooked principal's office...

greg wrote:It seems that he was talking about abandoning a building that was burning out of control like the fire chief said. That doesn't fly with you? After everyone watched the two towers collapse with hundreds of firemen in them, you don't see it reasonable for people to say, "fuck this empty office building." Would you ask people to go in there?

Sure, it would be reasonable to say "fuck (abandon) the empty office building." As far as asking anyone to go inside, I have no answer. I observe that firemen and crews were certainly in each surrounding building at one point or another.

What I want to know is why he said this: what Silverstein actually said was not "abandon" but "demolish/implode" ("pull").

I would never have noticed this except for the impression left by WTC 7's collapse images. Video shows WTC 7 slumps to the ground in what appears to me and many others a manner consistent with implosion. Further, the rubble pile as been commented on by demolitions experts as consistent with implosion (neat pile, much dust of the proper kind, exterior walls atop).

and-
Does it make sense that firemen would set up a demolition of a building that was burning out of their control? Do you know how involved demolishing a skyscraper is? I know that firemen aren't trained to do it, and those who are don't do it in less than a day -while the building is on fire.

You are of course correct: it does not make sense to have firemen set up a controlled demolition of a building. Their training does not include controlled demolition. And yes, it is very involved. Structural engineering analysis, charge placement, charge timing, site access control, etc. It is very specialized and time-consuming work.

Now that we agree, the question absolutely remains: How/why did WTC 7 fall? Video evidence shows a comparitively slightly damaged building, one full city block away from WTC 1 and 2, suffering two small fires, collapsing as quickly as gravity will allow, leaving a rubble pile consistent with implosion.

I wouldn't comment if not for: the building's owner is apparently on tape as having made the decision to implode it and 2) the intuitive conclusion that one city block is an awful long way for WTC 1 and 2 debris to project in sufficient quantities to cancel out the structural integrity of WTC 7.

Building 7 is appropriately a footnote in the overall catastrophe. It wasn’t important then because no one died in there.

Ask a fireman if he was ever trained to raze a skyscraper -
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html

Footnotes can raise fair questions.

-r

warmowski wrote:What I want to know is why he said this: what Silverstein actually said was not "abandon" but "demolish/implode" ("pull").
-r

Where is the term "pull" ever defined as an implosion?
I'm looking for sources that predate 2001, and can't find them. Could Silversein have just meant pull-out? That would actually be my 1st assumption. Has anyone asked Silverstein what he meant? In a documentary interview, I find it hard to believe that he would slip up in such a massive way. This would imply that he had his building set up for demolition.
I don't know why I'm picking on this particular issue.

someone hijacked a plane, planted bombs on wtc, installed a missile on airliner, hit the tower in the place where explosives were planted*, waited one hour and pushed the demolition button. if this is the truth, i know who was able of making all of this: god.

*note the way second tower collapses. the collapse begins clearly at the place where the tower was hit, with floors above the point of impact collapsing to the side.

however, i don't quite get why wtc7 collapsed. especially considering this pictures, taken while largest of skycrapers in madrid was on fire:




after hours of uncontrolled fire, this was left:

so i guess fire in wtc7 had to be A LOT hotter, but why? i heard about fuel storage in wtc7, so i guess this was the deciding factor.