How Many people, at a Minimum, would it take to carry 9/11 Inside job?

I meant to say post #278. My bad. Sometimes I drink too much coffee.

 

It would take months if they were doing it conventionally. It would take years to first move the furniture they would have to move (all of it has to happen in off hours remember), saw through floors, access the framework of the building etc.. The entire “controlled demolition” fantasy is just that, a fantasy by people who have way too much time on their hands.

 

this what the twoofers ignore at all costs ... yet some (one) want me to question the official story ...

CD is the basis of their argument ... when they want to address this, I will gladly engage ...

 

posers make me laugh.






so kiddies do the math, 30 seconds per charge about 48 columns every few floors, sounds like one evenings work for one guy.

 

I wouldn’t hold my breath. This is why they need spaced beans, nuke blasts or whatever else—the always popular thermite!!!. The already shaky story gets more unbelievable from there.

s

 

What about the wiring? The FDNY proved, unfortunately, that radio signals were not effective.

 

you're expert also said that the 1 and 2 were not brought down by CD ...

 

I'm still waiting Shinebox.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=477904&page=28&p=1067003829#post1067003829

 

what was the exact question ... whether or not people watch your stupid youtube vids? ... ask again without using a link ...

 

You don't seem very anxious to address this. Anyone who follows the links can see what the quesion is. If you'd answered it right away instead of hoping I'd forget about it, all of those links wouldn't be there.

I'll copy and paste it so that you don't have to click on any links.

Look at the top of post #204. What I'm asking is very clear so please don't play dumb.

 

I don't know what the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing question is Scott! ... what did he say exactly? ... just ask the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing question (in context) and I will answer it ...

Jesus Christ you are so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing obtuse ...

 

You've been ducking it for ten pages in the hope that I'd forget about it. I asked it very plainly back in post #223. Do I have to copy and paste it all for you because you refuse to click on the links and look at it?

Look at post #195.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=477904&page=23&p=1066979321#post1066979321

You have to look at some of the discussion before that to see the context. Do you think that usda_select's response was that of a truth-seeker? I say he was ducking the question. What do yo say?

 

Who cares if he asked if anyone has ever watched one of your videos ... I am sure usda has seen plenty of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) truther vids ... he seems very comfortable in his belief of the official version of events ...

 

The point is that when he felt checkmated, he sidestepped the issue instead of simply modifying his stand. If he wasn't checkmated, he should have explained why. His behavior was that of a checkmated sophist, not that of a truth-seeker.

 

How can anyone who comes here day after day defending the OCT and never questioning any of it be characterized as a "truth seeker" in the first place? These are the very same posters who ridicule those who question/contradict the OCT by using such childish name calling as "troofers" (implying a lack of intelligence to anyone who truly seeks the truth).

 

sure, they are posers, they pretend to be authoritive by sounding authoritive and the second you toss them a curve ball they shift the goal posts.
They want everyone to think that it takes 1/2 of new york to load those buildings with explosives when its 30 seconds per column, and as fast as it takes a kindergarten teacher to stick lil kids drawings on the wall board.

Hell in the one hour those buildings stood 1 guy could load at least 60 charges to make 60 cuts, its not like they had to worry about meeting any safety standards for asbestos.

 

1 vid from Jowenko and you're an expert on controlled demolition ... talk about a poser? ...

care to explain how they exposed the columns and how the collapses started at the impact zones on 1 and 2? ... come on poser, you can do it ...

 

After you explain why both impact zones were in the renovated computer centers.

Jowenko was talking about wtc7.

Thats right, its been a while, you are the fake architectural engineer

Oh and what makes you think that the columns had to be exposed to be cut?

 

That reminds me (besides the fact that the above is another one of hundreds of miraculous convenient coincidences). NIST claims the twin towers wouldn't have collapsed if not for the stripping of the fireproofing (we'll skip the moronic NIST "proof" that the fireproofing was stripped for now). But it just so happens the fireproofing was upgraded just prior to 9/11 nearly exactly at the impact zones. So if NIST's "experiment" is not reality (it's closer to absudity), then according to NIST, the twins should not have collapsed. Go figure.

 

The truth is in the 9/11 Commission report. If a Truther would bother to write down a competing narrative with reasonable detail, I'd give it a fair hearing. As of this writing, your side of the argument has been 100% resistant to write down what you think happened on that day (again in reasonable detail). So there is nothing but bits and pieces and allegations. Like the allegation that some "people saw a cargo plane/smaller plane/different plane" hit the twin towers. Even though there are videos of both planes hitting both towers that you guys ignore. But when someone does point out the wreckage is consistent with the planes being the jets pointed out In the 9/11 Commission Report, the DNA of the passengers is consistent, the phone calls are consistent, the air traffic controller tracking of the planes is consistent, and even eye witnesses in the towers themselves is consistent...the excuses become more exotic. What is it you dopes say..."the DNA was planted" or the "phone calls were faked"? So the question naturally becomes why would the planners:

Enlist people to plant DNA--any of whom could blow open the entire conspiracy
Enlist people to falsify the DNA--any of whom could blow open the entire conspiracy
Enlist people to fake phone calls--any of whom could blow open the entire conspiracy

If they do bother to answer, the truthers usually get very belligerent and try to insinuate that the planters, falsifiers, and fakers (we need all three it seems) are under duress and are fearful of their lives if they come forward--thus enlarging the circle even greater to include assassins or other muscle.

 

Yes, of course it would be near impossible to execute any alternative scenario
BUT the fact the they managed to accomplish this while leaving almost zero evidence...
That fact could only demonstrate one conclusion:
This conspiracy must have had colossal planning, resources, knowledge, ability,and broad support needed to accomplish the plan flawlessly
So.... the lack of evidence logically proves the enormous scope of the conspiracy and the threat it poses.

 

You're misrepresenting the truther position to mislead the viewers. Check out these videos.

THAT WAS NOT American Airlines
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26-8FITRjz4

It Was A Military Plane - September 11 2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGQypnKa_6A

9/11: "Not a commercial airliner"--FOX employee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsFcpUGPzKY

The plane that hit WTC 2 was not American Airlines
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_lpWsrRl3Q

FOX News Employee witnesses No windows on Plane hitting WTC
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a34_1172202296&comments=1


This has been shown to you people before. You're just trying to muddy the waters.

We truthers aren't here to try to convince you posters that it was an inside job. You already know it. We're here to neutralize your sophistry. If we leave, you'll just bury all of the stuff we've posted and go on as if we'd never made any points. We should take shifts.

 

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
by Dr. David Ray Griffin

http://www.911truth.org/the-911-commission-report-a-571-page-lie/

Just a few quotes:

"I don't believe for a minute that we got everything right." - Lee Hamilton

"the Commission was set up to fail" - Lee Hamilton

“Bush is scamming America." - Max Cleland

"As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11 than it has ever admitted." - Max Cleland

“There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration." - Bob Kerry

“We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting. We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy.” - Tim Roemer

 

More on the 9/11 Commission's "truth":

9/11 Commission Deceived: An Unintentional Work of Fiction Based on Cheney’s Torture Program

The 9/11 Commission: A Victim of Cheney’s Torture Program

In the run up to the Iraq war – and for several years thereafter – the program of torture carried out by the Bush administration was specifically specifically aimed at establishing a false justification for war. Dick Cheney is the guy who pushed for torture, pressured the Justice Department lawyers to write memos saying torture was legal, and made the pitch to Congress justifying torture. (The former director of the CIA said Cheney oversaw American torture policies).

The type of torture used by the U.S. on the Guantanamo suspects is of a special type. Senator Levin revealed that the the U.S. used Communist torture techniques specifically aimed at creating false confessions (see this, this, this and this).

According to NBC News:

* Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured

* At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being “tortured.”

* One of the Commission’s main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was not even allowed to read

* The 9/11 Commission itself doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to themselves

In fact, the 9/11 Commission Report was largely based on third-hand accounts of what tortured detainees said, with two of the three parties in the communication being government employees.

As the 9/11 Commission Report itself states:

Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these “detainees” have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot. Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses-sworn enemies of the United States-is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting.

In other words, the 9/11 Commissioners were not allowed to speak with the detainees, or even their interrogators. Instead, they got their information third-hand.

The Commission didn’t really trust the interrogation testimony. For example, one of the primary architects of the 9/11 Commission Report – Ernest May – said in May 2005:

We never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources.

Read the rest (there's plenty more):

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...sed-on-cheneys-communist-torture-program.html

 

It appears that you don't understand that the cellphone calls were first, impossible, and second, faked.

Today's cellphones and system are significantly different than they were in 2001.