Thanks for your comment post. Your opinion is welcomed here.

In reply to this comment by dbalsdon:
SDGundamX:
You should try debating with headless chickens. It would be a LOT easier then trying to debate with truthers.

"I don't know why people place such great emphasis on what happened on the day rather on how it was allowed to happen given the massive influx of covert intelligence saying that an attack was imminent coming from various sources in Europe."

Exactly what intelligence did they receive? "An attack is going to happen soon", or "4 planes are going to be hijacked and crashed into buildings on 9/11"

"But that's no big deal, because the NIST report is also based mostly on conjecture and witness testimony, with little supporting photographic evidence."

This, coming from someone who claims: "Massive fires raging all day, with nothing to substantiate that." Yep. Except for all the firefighters and people who were actually there, and the photos showing smoke coming from the building.

Hang on. I thought NYC officials already stated publically that WTC7 was intentionally pulled down when it was clear that it couldn't be saved with a reasonable amount of work?

Not WTC7. Some buildings were purposefully demolished/pulled down AFTER 9/11, when "it was clear... blah". Or are you referring to Silverstein's 'pull it' phrase, in which, based on what firefighters on the ground were reporting back to him, he told them to abandon WTC7 because it wasn't safe.

"You are willing to accept the official story where so many are not, simply because they see a 47 story building plummet to the ground at near free-fall speed"

Many? Ha!! Freefall?? Oh, the claim that it collapsed in 9.7(or something like that) seconds. WRONG!! The building took a LOT longer then 9.7 seconds to collapse. First(and the bit that is ALWAYS ignored by truthers) is that the north(east/west) section of wtc7 collapsed about 5 to 10 seconds BEFORE the main collapse started. So, when the main part collapsed, there was already a large part of the building already gone.

Sorry for butting in, but just noticed that the first post here was off me being quoted.

"I don't know why people place such great emphasis on what happened on the day rather on how it was allowed to happen given the massive influx of covert intelligence saying that an attack was imminent coming from various sources in Europe."

Exactly what intelligence did they receive? "An attack is going to happen soon", or "4 planes are going to be hijacked and crashed into buildings on 9/11"

"But that's no big deal, because the NIST report is also based mostly on conjecture and witness testimony, with little supporting photographic evidence."

This, coming from someone who claims: "Massive fires raging all day, with nothing to substantiate that." Yep. Except for all the firefighters and people who were actually there, and the photos showing smoke coming from the building.

Hang on. I thought NYC officials already stated publically that WTC7 was intentionally pulled down when it was clear that it couldn't be saved with a reasonable amount of work?

Not WTC7. Some buildings were purposefully demolished/pulled down AFTER 9/11, when "it was clear... blah". Or are you referring to Silverstein's 'pull it' phrase, in which, based on what firefighters on the ground were reporting back to him, he told them to abandon WTC7 because it wasn't safe.

"You are willing to accept the official story where so many are not, simply because they see a 47 story building plummet to the ground at near free-fall speed"

Many? Ha!! Freefall?? Oh, the claim that it collapsed in 9.7(or something like that) seconds. WRONG!! The building took a LOT longer then 9.7 seconds to collapse. First(and the bit that is ALWAYS ignored by truthers) is that the north(east/west) section of wtc7 collapsed about 5 to 10 seconds BEFORE the main collapse started. So, when the main part collapsed, there was already a large part of the building already gone.

Sorry for butting in, but just noticed that the first post here was off me being quoted.

To dbalsdon and those who upvoted his comments (StukaFox,TheSofaKing,gorgonheap,Marinegunrock,Japr).

Your first comment:
>I guess destroying support beams, drilling holes into the ones that remain, and then sneaking loads of a top secret new explosives(that doesn't make any noise when they go off) into the building, without ANYONE noticing, is a "perfectly logical" explanation isn't it??<

Its obvious that an upvote for this comment has nothing to do with evidence or facts and is completely pointless, but you all thought it worthy of your upvote. I can only say its going to be difficult to take any of your comments seriously. There are dozens if not hundreds of individuals that were told to evacuate the area around WTC 7 hours before the building fell. Many said they were told the building was going to be blown up,some were told it was going to be pulled and others were told it was in danger of collapsing. Many news outlets reported the collapse of the building before the collapse actually occurred.

second comment:
>K. Just seen that. And no, they didn't. The phrase "pull it" was used by Larry Silverstein in an interview after the attacks, in reference to getting the firefighters out of the building, because the firefighters on the ground thought the building was going to collapse, and there was no need to risk their lives to save the building.
The truthers now claim that "pull it" is a term used in controlled demolition, which CD workers have denied.<
Come on, do you really believe that "pull it" is a term that would mean to get people out of an area. Do a search and see if CD workers know and use that term. I found a few. Im sure if you would take the time to look you may also find them.

Wow, truthers is the name youve given the other side. Whats more important winning or the truth. This is no different then liberals and conservatives or Democrats and Republicans. They take our money they send our friends and family to die for there selfish reasons and we sit here and argue amongst ourselves.

Im done.
Im gonna jump on my skate and go get coffee and a donut.

..and if you might want to try and figure out what the truth might be. Goto the link in my previous post

"didn't they already publicly admit to "pulling it down" after some offices caught fire (which of course is a pretty lame excuse)?"

K. Just seen that. And no, they didn't. The phrase "pull it" was used by Larry Silverstein in an interview after the attacks, in reference to getting the firefighters out of the building, because the firefighters on the ground thought the building was going to collapse, and there was no need to risk their lives to save the building.

The truthers now claim that "pull it" is a term used in controlled demolition, which CD workers have denied.

Hit home with Americans? Ha! Show me proof. Americans feel more connected to Mike Huckabee then fake man Romney.

Am sorry but the American public is generally more informed then to fall to the strategic pandering of someone who changed his position on every issue possible to garner as many Republican votes as he can. Romney's position is backed only by the best political consultants money can buy.

He spends millions just to hit recognition levels among the populace, while Mike Huckabee is able to do that without spending a dime.

Ken Silverstein's Making Mitt Romney: How to fabricate a conservative is required reading...

Furthermore, at a time of 2 prolonged wars, looming economic recession, failing foreign economic policy, destruction of civil liberties, why is religion even a central issue?

Has Bush's religious background meant he was more compassionate (not even talking wise, I'll let that slide) to the people who suffered in Katrina? Rising child health care costs? Those who are facing a crisis with their mortgage payments? This is not even mentioning the millions affected by war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the soldiers sent to fight a war without a clear objective and those who fell to torture programs...

EDIT: Qruel is right, this BS needs to be seen.

Ok... first off, I'm merely trying to learn about the protocols of zion. It's written out very carefully and I admit that it may be a forgery, a fake, a hoax. I surely hope that it is, however there are parallels that raise alarms in the United States that is extremely troubling to patriots that wish to preserve the Constitution and national sovereignty of this great nation that our forefathers/founders intended for a truly free and non-oppressive country where immigrants from oppressive nations can find refuge (although we are starting to become a bit crowded and immigration is a little out of control thanks to NAFTA and the SPP).

1.) A shadow government has been exposed with massive control in our government.

2.) The Constitution is being subverted, violated, and slowly being trumped by the Executive branch which has also managed to virtually disable the Justice department and constantly vetoes important bills from the Senate. Some of this is justified due to the amount of pork and earmarks added to these important bills... the Senate and HR bill process needs to be revised to control the abuse of the vulnerabilities of this great but less-than-perfect system.

3.) I know some wonderful Jewish people and I don't wish to sound anti-semitic because I respect my Jewish friends very much, however... there are many powerful Jewish people that I feel are hurting this country and I despise - such as Silverstein, Ariel Sharon, Media giant Murdoch, Senator Charles Schumer, Alan Greenspan, Paul Wolfowitz and most importantly: Henry Kissinger.

4.) Silverstein profited big time (7 Billion dollars) on the tragedy of 9/11 from which he purchased the WTC and a multi-million dollar policy a few months before 9/11.
Mukasey (current Attorney General @ Justice dept selected by Bush) was the Judge that presided over this case.

5.) Media monopolist Murdoch continues to buy up any media source of signifigance.

6.) When Bush finally appointed someone to head the 9/11 commission (14 months after), he appointed Henry Kissinger - then realizing the fact that Kissinger which when confronted with the verifiable ties he and the Bush's has to the Bin Ladens he then stepped down from the position.

7.) The Bush family and the CIA has intimate ties with the Bin Ladens and Saudi oil tycoons and Israeli officials.

When Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres warned Prime minister Ariel Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us. "Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America."

9.) For decades the US has provided Israel with crucial military, diplomatic and financial backing, including more than $3 billion each year in aid.

10.) Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has spoken with blunt exasperation about the Jewish-Israeli hold on the United States:

"I've never seen a President — I don't care who he is — stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."

11.) I will agree that the protocols is a hoax only because it may very well be, however the things that are occurring in this country seem to prove otherwise. Hate me if you wish.... call me anti-semitic, call me the malicious names as you have in the past if you wish, but I've seen some very questionable things happening in regards to powerful Jewish ppl. I hope your right and I'm wrong.

12.) I will continue to research this and other topics and I thank God (if there even is one) that we have the internet to discuss such issues. The mass media seems to be mostly trivial crap focused on entertaining people keeping them from focusing on the seriousness of the problems with our government. This is one of the agendas in the PoZ but I'm sure that's just coincidence because it's a hoax intended to make people hate Jews, right?

P.S. qualm: When I refer to International Bankers, I don't mean it in code as as you continually perpetuate as it's meaning... International Bankers means to most people just what it implies... check wikipedia and that one video I posted: http://www.videosift.com/video/The-CFR-The-Capitalist-Conspiracy at the 1:15 mark for more modern definitions of the term. International Bankers are not just Jewish people.

deedub, I doubt your seriousness. You can't honestly believe your lame defense you are putting forth.

An Emergency Command Center (that would have generators and the works in case of major power outage, crisis, etc.) and it is on the 28th floor??!! (Could it be that his buddy Silverstein had an empty floor he needed a tenant for?). The site was chosen because it was in walking distance.

How many plots have been talked about regarding WTC? How many actual explosions an serious attempts have taken place in WTC complex? Are you insane?! That is like saying no one could have imagined hijacked planes being flown into bldgs, or no one imagined the levies would break in NOLA.

HOW COULD HE HAVE KNOWN FOR SURE???! How about when your Director of Emergency Management tells you so! Maybe Rudy opened a newspaper a few years ago and read about actual bomb being detonated across the f-ing street from where he was planning a Command Center.

And Rudy didn't do jack for the homicide rate. That was a historic trend and nothing he did per se. Look at other major urban homicide rates from the same time period. Rudy is a one trick pony.

Rotty:

I think you might be slightly muddled over which clip I was referring to at any one time and what those clips themselves actually show. Just to clarify, my first paragraph referred to this one, my second to this one and my third to this one (which features a discussion of the "pulling" of World Trade Center 6 and not World Trade Center 7).

Further, if you'll notice, I didn't simply claim that "It's fairly clear that by 'pull it,' Silverstein meant 'pull the team of fire fighters back to a safe distance'" and leave it at that. I gave a number of reasons as to why it's clear that that's what he meant; the belief that he meant "blow it up" results in a number of absurd consequences. The most notable of which is that it implies that the Fire Department are both complicit in and keeping quiet about a conspiracy that claimed the lives of approximately three hundred of their colleagues and a further three thousand innocent American citizens.

If we're to think that the rescue workers had foreknowledge of a supposed demolition, it would imply that they're both complicit in and keeping quiet about a conspiracy that claimed the lives of approximately four hundred of their colleagues. The rescue workers were well aware that World Trade Center 7 was going to collapse -- due to the structural damage and extensive fires it had suffered; there are a number of quotations in which they state as much.

It's fairly clear that by "pull it," Silverstein meant "pull the team of fire fighters back to a safe distance." There are numerous quotations in which the fire fighters themselves use the term in precisely the same way. Grammatically, it would have been exceedingly strange if by "pull it" he'd meant "blow it up." Further, given that he was talking to the Fire Department at the time, if that's really what he'd meant, then it would imply that the Fire Department made the decision to carry out a nefarious demolition. Somehow, I doubt he'd be the subject of all this libellous nonsense if his name wasn't Silverstein.

With regards to the clip featuring the discussion of "pulling" World Trade Center 6, there's a reason why the typically deceitful conspiracy theorist that runs that site has cut the video at that point. He doesn't want you to see the next scene; it shows the building not being demolished by an explosive demolition, but being literally pulled over with steel cables attached to heavy machinery.

Are these videos/audio clips not real: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

Larry Silverstein: [wmv download] - (2nd link in story)
Are these firfighters not talking about bldg 7: WMV video download (1 MB) - (11th link in story)

They look like news clips and and are quite explicit about "pulling" the building...
Of course the notion of "pulling" would imply planted explosive, I guess.

I haven't really looked much into this and I don't know Choggie's theory, but there seems to be lots of "stuff" out there to stir the pot.

Firstly -- and I'm sure I shouldn't need to point this out -- Bluecliff specifically asked me for my opinion on Silverstein's use of the term "pull it." So, to say that by informing him of it I'm "missing the point" is really quite surreal.

Secondly, and quiet clearly, I didn't claim that a demolition was carried out "after the fires" or, for that matter, at any other time. I was pointing out that if by "pull it" Silverstein really had meant "blow it up," it would imply that the Fire Department had made a decision to carry out a nefarious demolition.

Well, yes. Of course that's what he meant. Using the term "pull it" to mean "pull the team of fire fighters back to a safe distance" is hardly a grammatical curiosity. There are numerous quotations in which the fire fighters themselves use it in precisely the same way. An example of something that would have been grammatically curious is if by "pull it" he'd meant "blow it up." Further, given that he was talking to the Fire Department, it would imply that the Fire Department made the decision to carry out a nefarious demolition.

Somehow, I doubt he'd be the subject of all this libellous nonsense if his name wasn't Silverstein.

Heres a video of Giuliani admitting that he knew that buildings were going to collapse, and Silverstein admitting that they "pulled" or used demolitions on building 7.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6357586375896950217&pr=goog-sl

bullet. proof.

"What I meant by indisputable and bulletproof is that anyone who watches the video without prejudice would be forced to arrive at the same conclusion.

1. They estimated pancaking would take what, 111 seconds? It fell in 10."

Who are "they"? Did "they" do an accurate model test to see what would happen? It doesn't surprise me that thousands of tons of concrete and steel would accelerate to such speed and go through anything under it.

"2. The concrete was reduced to dust. Pancaked buildings look like this: http://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/pt/hazards/k/images/carcus.jpg A pile of floors on top each other, not a pile of conveniently sized pieces of metal for clearing."

Good job comparing a skyscraper to a small building. Seriously, do you really think that over 100 floors collapsing onto each other would stack up so nicely? By now you've lost all credibility, and there's really no point continuing, but I'll go on.

"3. Structural steel melts at 2700 F, jet fuel/open air fires burn at 1200 F max."

But it weakens at a much lower temperature. Also, the planes tore through a lot of supports. The comparison of planes to wind that they make in the documentary is laughable. Wind doesn't have such concentrated penetrating force.

"4. The core sinks before the floors collapse. The core collapsed at all (it should have been left standing if the floors pancaked around it)."

It's not like the floors are loosely connected to the core and would just fall around it.

"5. All the firefighters/witnesses heard multiple explosions."

Really? Did they interview ALL the witnesses? And I don't think a person that just went through such a shocking experience is the best person to ask such details. Also, I'm sure a building makes all kinds of noises when it falls apart.

"6. Almost every sky scraper has had a major fire in its lifetime. Many have sustained full on fires for 20+ hours and none have ever collapsed, the only three in recorded history all collapsed on 9/11 and fell in an identical manner."

Not jet fuel fire after being penetrated with a commercial jet.

"7. The WTC was publically owned until Larry Silverstein, a private contractor bought it two months before 9/11 and put out a huge insurance policy with terrorism clause. He collected 7 billion and will be profiting off the memorial."

Uhh... so what? This is a possible motive, but it's not evidence.

"The list goes on. One is enough, how can you argue against dozens?"

Well I just did.

What I meant by indisputable and bulletproof is that anyone who watches the video without prejudice would be forced to arrive at the same conclusion.

1. They estimated pancaking would take what, 111 seconds? It fell in 10.

2. The concrete was reduced to dust. Pancaked buildings look like this: http://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/pt/hazards/k/images/carcus.jpg A pile of floors on top each other, not a pile of conveniently sized pieces of metal for clearing.

3. Structural steel melts at 2700 F, jet fuel/open air fires burn at 1200 F max. Thermite (explosives used in demolitions) burns at 4000+ F. They found traces of Thermite on the steel.

4. The core sinks before the floors collapse. The core collapsed at all (it should have been left standing if the floors pancaked around it).

5. All the firefighters/witnesses heard multiple explosions.

6. Almost every sky scraper has had a major fire in its lifetime. Many have sustained full on fires for 20+ hours and none have ever collapsed, the only three in recorded history all collapsed on 9/11 and fell in an identical manner.

7. The WTC was publically owned until Larry Silverstein, a private contractor bought it two months before 9/11 and put out a huge insurance policy with terrorism clause. He collected 7 billion and will be profiting off the memorial.

The list goes on. One is enough, how can you argue against dozens? Like I said--bulletproof.