[BartSimpson]

OPP wrote:

The entire world trade center complex was...infested with heavily toxic substanses such as asbestos.

Had asbestos actually been used in the WTC as the original plans called for then the two towers possibly would've survived the fires. It was the absence of asbestos fire insulation on the steel supports that contributed to the demise of the buildings.

[OPP]

BartSimpson wrote:

OPP wrote:

The entire world trade center complex was...infested with heavily toxic substanses such as asbestos.

Had asbestos actually been used in the WTC as the original plans called for then the two towers possibly would've survived the fires. It was the absence of asbestos fire insulation on the steel supports that contributed to the demise of the buildings.

That's utter nonsense. Just as the pancake theory was untill the U.S gov. abandoned it.

[Psudo]

I won't be addressing the 9/11 tinfoil hat conspiracies. That's a horrible mistreatment of the victims' memory.

Kjorteo wrote:

Terrorism is a tactic, not an affiliation.

If I say Muslim extremism or Muslim terrorists, I get criticized for referring to all Muslims as extremists and terrorists. If I say Middle Eastern radicals, I get notifications that they have cells world-wide. If I say terrorism, I get the criticism that it's a tactic rather than an affiliation. What term should I use for the subset of Muslims who use terrorist tactics to destroy or terrify opposing views into defeat? It is a ideology crossed with a tactic and supported by a culture of powerlessness. Whatever term you prefer for that set, that is the target of the war.

Kjorteo wrote:

Why did he just overthrow a regime ostensibly due to its harboring Osama Bin Laden, without then actually getting Osama Bin Laden?

We all regret that our attempt to capture Bin Ladin from his Taliban supporters failed. We did eliminate an ally of his, which is something but not enough. What action should follow? We have even less idea of where he is now than when we invaded Afghanistan, suggesting even less chance of getting him if we tried the same strategy again, not to mention the "Pakistan has nukes!" angle.

And eliminating one nutjob does not protect us from the culture of radicalism that bred and followed him. There is enough of a record of his ideology for them to follow his martyred memory instead.

[Bodah]

OPP wrote:

Bodah wrote:

The theory of parsimony goes right out the window with these people, all you need is a bit of logic to keep in mind, to prove 911 theories is a bunch of horse shit.

1-Why make the attack that complex ? one plane into a tower without it collapsing would be enough reason to going on this imperialist crusade they are accusing their home-boys of doing.

The entire world trade center complex was running at a loss and was infested with heavily toxic substanses such as asbestos. Becaus of "new" laws and regulations the owners of these buildings would have to rid the buildings of the asbestos to be allowed to continue using them. However, doing so would cost HUGE sums. It was better then to INSURE the buildings for huge sums and watch them be demolished. Problem solved.

You nutters better have a metting to get your stories straight then, because now you claim the reason why they were brought down is part of an insurance scam... ??? You serious ?:lol: Well if you can't make the puzzle pieces fit, you guys just make your own pieces don't you. Because I thought this was suppose to be about Big Bad Americans bent on on world domination to rape the world and soveirgn countries of their oil... Make up your mind. Or is it about both now ? Owners of the building are now included in being in the know of the 911 theory now, more people on your list who can amazingly keep quiet and have no problem with the people that died there (probably alot of people they knew, and knew well)

OPP wrote:

Bodah wrote:

-With an attack this complex there is still no physical evidence left behind that would point to governement involvement. Ah yes but I forgot, after a chaotic event such as this they were still able to hide or destroy all evidence.

Yes, they shipped it of to china. Did you miss that?

No didn't miss it, you nutters bring it up all the time. To correct you though the rubble was inspected although I know the nutters expected the government to keep half of Manhattan surrounded in CSI police tape for a couple of years a carefully shift through every single little stone, stapler and rebar. Happens in tv shows but not in real life, ya know reality ? Doing it your way would be a nice way to destroy the economy of Manhattan, ohh how imperialistic of me.

OPP wrote:

Bodah wrote:

3-If the government or the super agents of Darth Vader were able to pull this off, why couldn't they plant WMD's in Iraq ?

Would be rather suspisious to find WMD's in Iraq with a "made in the U.S.A" label on them, wouldn't you agree. Even still. It mattered little that they didn't find any WMD's. The U.S is still in Iraq and no one has stood trial.

What do you mean it doesn't matter ? Of course it matters ... Think out of the box and keep it in context with everything else , you know 911 and the war on terror? Weapons of MAss Destruction and all of that stuff, don't you think public opinion poll would change for the Americans if a large and deadly stock pile of WMD's were found in Iraq, of course in matters. Oh yeah the signature theory behind WMD's something the Americans couldn't hide, but they' ve been able to hide everything else huh ?? .... Lets see here's one way to do it.... Hire a guy, like a super agent like Boba Fett or a muslim you know just to make it look authentic and what not, go to the Soviet Union or some other country and buy some WMD's ? Naaa that would never work and they could pull alot things off but not that ?..... yeah right

OPP wrote:

Bodah wrote:

4-Bill Clinton couldn't get a blow job without the whole world finding out, according to the nutters the 1000's of people that would of been needed to be involved (and its a big list of private companies, NYFD, government agencies, liberals in the pentagon, etc... ) are still able to keep quiet to this day, amazing

It's all about which company or private interest own which media. Still, Bill Clinton is a single man and this Monica insident got huge media attention, yet, missing WMD's, that NORAD stood down on 9/11, that the Bin Laden family was flown out of the country on 9/11, that Bush had been warned about an imminent threat posed by Usama Bin Laden but didn't act on it and so on and so on, did not recieve the same media attention???

I have no idea what your rambling on about now, but I'm pretty sure you've included the Main Stream Media and the Joo's as being in the know as well in your 911 theory... Wow that list of people who can keep quiet is is really growing huh ?

OPP wrote:

Bodah wrote:

5-WTC was attacked during Clinton's term? What's the story behind that one ? Coincidence ? ... I forgot in the wolrd of paranoid conspiracy theories there are no such thing as coincidences.

The Oklahoma city Bombing, same story there. It's not a coincidence, you're right about that.

Huh ? .... Americans have been trying for a long time to take down WTC but were only able too in 2001 . is that what your saying ? Or was that a real covienient coincidental attack by real terrorirsts.

In the wolrd of paranoid conspiracy theories there are no such thing as coincidences

[kal]

Psudo wrote:

Kjorteo wrote:

I doubt [Bush] knew the plan and deliberately decided to let it happen, or anything along those lines. However, there were a lot of warnings ignored and memos unread, and a very convincing case could be made for the argument that Bush and his administration failed to prevent it when it might have been possible to had they been more diligent. However, there's no question that they made the best of a bad situation and took advantage of the fallout to promote a lot of the otherwise-unpopular ideas on his agenda.

It's kind of like saying Bush didn't actually steal someone's wallet, but when he found a wallet on the sidewalk that had been lost, he still helped himself to the contents rather than turning it in.

I think even this is a little unfair of a treatment of Bush's actions. A catastrophe happened on his watch. If he hadn't acted proactively not just to resolve the immediate situation but to prevent similar catastrophes from happening again, he would be lambasted as shirking his national security duties. If he'd only gone to Afghanistan to end the Taliban, the criticism of him would be "Why did he take out a single terrorism supporter rather than address the threat of terrorism itself?" Declaring a global war against terrorist extremism is the only approach that would justify him in the face of this very rational criticism.

Whether or not Iraq was the right next step is subjective, but with Saddam seeking uranium in Niger he seemed like a viable threat anyhow. And it does give extremists in Iran and Syria a more immediate concern than the Great Satan across the Atlantic.

I think Bush, while blatantly not perfect, acted better than most people give him credit for.

Regardless of anything else, Bush used 9/11 as a direct excuse to invade Iraq despite overwhelming evidence that Saddam had absolutly nothing to do with it.

[WDHIII]

Bodah wrote:

You nutters better have a metting to get your stories straight then, because now you claim the reason why they were brought down is part of an insurance scam... ???

You noticed that too huh? OPP changes his freakin mind more than he changes his tiger print man thongs

[BartSimpson]

OPP wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

OPP wrote:

The entire world trade center complex was...infested with heavily toxic substanses such as asbestos.

Had asbestos actually been used in the WTC as the original plans called for then the two towers possibly would've survived the fires. It was the absence of asbestos fire insulation on the steel supports that contributed to the demise of the buildings.

That's utter nonsense. Just as the pancake theory was untill the U.S gov. abandoned it.

Okay then, what's your proof that asbestos was used to insulate the structural steel of the towers?

Because I can prove that it wasn't.

http://www.btinternet.com/~ibas/lka_wor ... center.htm

Quote:

Asbestos at the WTC

Many people enquired about the presence of asbestos at the World Trade Center (WTC) last week. At that time I had no information about this subject. In awe of the superhuman efforts being made to locate survivors, I felt it inappropriate to highlight these questions. Since then, information has been forthcoming about the use of asbestos on the twin towers. One contact informed me that prior to the complex being built, the New York Port Authority had planned to use 5000 tons of asbestos-containing sprayed fireproofing on floors 1-40 of the buildings. Above the fortieth floor, non-asbestos alternatives were to be used. This is confirmed by an article which appeared in the New York Times on September 18, 2001: "Anticipating a ban (on the use of asbestos in construction in NY), the builders stopped using the materials by the time they reached the 40th floor of the north tower, the first one to go up…" According to a spokesman for the Port Authority "more than half of the original, asbestos-containing material was later replaced."

[OPP]

Bodah wrote:

OPP wrote:

Bodah wrote:

The theory of parsimony goes right out the window with these people, all you need is a bit of logic to keep in mind, to prove 911 theories is a bunch of horse shit.

1-Why make the attack that complex ? one plane into a tower without it collapsing would be enough reason to going on this imperialist crusade they are accusing their home-boys of doing.

The entire world trade center complex was running at a loss and was infested with heavily toxic substanses such as asbestos. Becaus of "new" laws and regulations the owners of these buildings would have to rid the buildings of the asbestos to be allowed to continue using them. However, doing so would cost HUGE sums. It was better then to INSURE the buildings for huge sums and watch them be demolished. Problem solved.

You nutters better have a metting to get your stories straight then, because now you claim the reason why they were brought down is part of an insurance scam... ??? You serious ?:lol: Well if you can't make the puzzle pieces fit, you guys just make your own pieces don't you. Because I thought this was suppose to be about Big Bad Americans bent on on world domination to rape the world and soveirgn countries of their oil... Make up your mind. Or is it about both now ? Owners of the building are now included in being in the know of the 911 theory now, more people on your list who can amazingly keep quiet and have no problem with the people that died there (probably alot of people they knew, and knew well)

So, this is news to you?
Larry Silverstein is one of the most important pieces in this. Have you missed this completely?
I'm making this up am I? hahaha! You give me too much credit.

Quote:

OPP wrote:

Bodah wrote:

-With an attack this complex there is still no physical evidence left behind that would point to governement involvement. Ah yes but I forgot, after a chaotic event such as this they were still able to hide or destroy all evidence.

Yes, they shipped it of to china. Did you miss that?

No didn't miss it, you nutters bring it up all the time. To correct you though the rubble was inspected although I know the nutters expected the government to keep half of Manhattan surrounded in CSI police tape for a couple of years a carefully shift through every single little stone, stapler and rebar. Happens in tv shows but not in real life, ya know reality ? Doing it your way would be a nice way to destroy the economy of Manhattan, ohh how imperialistic of me.

I brought all of this to your attention on the "official" 9/11 thread. The Fire Engineering questioned the manner in which evidence was being handeled and that you can't discard or ship of steel which is considered evidence.
You can ridicule this all you want but it wont change the fact that a non partisan and full investigation has yet to take place. If you want to discuss this further then I must insist that we do so on "the official 9/11 foiler thread".

Quote:

OPP wrote:

Bodah wrote:

3-If the government or the super agents of Darth Vader were able to pull this off, why couldn't they plant WMD's in Iraq ?

Would be rather suspisious to find WMD's in Iraq with a "made in the U.S.A" label on them, wouldn't you agree. Even still. It mattered little that they didn't find any WMD's. The U.S is still in Iraq and no one has stood trial.

What do you mean it doesn't matter ? Of course it matters ... Think out of the box and keep it in context with everything else , you know 911 and the war on terror? Weapons of MAss Destruction and all of that stuff, don't you think public opinion poll would change for the Americans if a large and deadly stock pile of WMD's were found in Iraq, of course in matters. Oh yeah the signature theory behind WMD's something the Americans couldn't hide, but they' ve been able to hide everything else huh ?? .... Lets see here's one way to do it.... Hire a guy, like a super agent like Boba Fett or a muslim you know just to make it look authentic and what not, go to the Soviet Union or some other country and buy some WMD's ? Naaa that would never work and they could pull alot things off but not that ?..... yeah right

Then by all means, explain to me how they would get a hold of WMDs from Russia.
I said that it matters little. Not that it didn't matter at all. They clearly assessed this to be a minor set back and that they would get away with it by just claiming ignorance or faulty information. The invasion of Iraq was much to important.

Quote:

OPP wrote:

Bodah wrote:

4-Bill Clinton couldn't get a blow job without the whole world finding out, according to the nutters the 1000's of people that would of been needed to be involved (and its a big list of private companies, NYFD, government agencies, liberals in the pentagon, etc... ) are still able to keep quiet to this day, amazing

It's all about which company or private interest own which media. Still, Bill Clinton is a single man and this Monica insident got huge media attention, yet, missing WMD's, that NORAD stood down on 9/11, that the Bin Laden family was flown out of the country on 9/11, that Bush had been warned about an imminent threat posed by Usama Bin Laden but didn't act on it and so on and so on, did not recieve the same media attention???

I have no idea what your rambling on about now, but I'm pretty sure you've included the Main Stream Media and the Joo's as being in the know as well in your 911 theory... Wow that list of people who can keep quiet is is really growing huh ?

Keep quiet about what? Those who own the different news channels and newspapers in america simply tell them what they can and cant broadcast or print and what they should focus their attention on. How is this telling them that; "Oh, by the way, the government perpetrated 9/11. Now go on about your business and don't tell this to anyone".????

Quote:

OPP wrote:

Bodah wrote:

5-WTC was attacked during Clinton's term? What's the story behind that one ? Coincidence ? ... I forgot in the wolrd of paranoid conspiracy theories there are no such thing as coincidences.

The Oklahoma city Bombing, same story there. It's not a coincidence, you're right about that.

Huh ? .... Americans have been trying for a long time to take down WTC but were only able too in 2001 . is that what your saying ? Or was that a real covienient coincidental attack by real terrorirsts.

In the wolrd of paranoid conspiracy theories there are no such thing as coincidences

I believe that the Oklahoma bombing was an attempot to pass new laws which would make it a lot easier to perpetrate the "main attack" which is the one we saw on 9/11. The 93' bombing of one of the twin towers was carried out to enable them to set most of the charges or explosives in these two buildings under the guise of repairs. You mentioned that Building 5 was attacked aswell during the 90's and that would suggest that they installed much of what was needed to bring it down during the repairs that followed.
Remember that the only buildings that suffered total collapse was the Twin Towers and Building 5. Yet another coinsidense!

[Blue_Nose]

OPP wrote:

Larry Silverstein is one of the most important pieces in this.

Yeah, the guy arranged the whole thing - fires, structural damage - beforehand with GWB and the New York Fire Department, for insurance purposes... then he blows his cover by revealing his secret plan in an interview on national television.

That "important piece" really puts the conspiracy quacks' arguments in perspective .

[OPP]

BartSimpson wrote:

OPP wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

OPP wrote:

The entire world trade center complex was...infested with heavily toxic substanses such as asbestos.

Had asbestos actually been used in the WTC as the original plans called for then the two towers possibly would've survived the fires. It was the absence of asbestos fire insulation on the steel supports that contributed to the demise of the buildings.

That's utter nonsense. Just as the pancake theory was untill the U.S gov. abandoned it.

Okay then, what's your proof that asbestos was used to insulate the structural steel of the towers?

Because I can prove that it wasn't.

http://www.btinternet.com/~ibas/lka_wor ... center.htm

Quote:

Asbestos at the WTC

Many people enquired about the presence of asbestos at the World Trade Center (WTC) last week. At that time I had no information about this subject. In awe of the superhuman efforts being made to locate survivors, I felt it inappropriate to highlight these questions. Since then, information has been forthcoming about the use of asbestos on the twin towers. One contact informed me that prior to the complex being built, the New York Port Authority had planned to use 5000 tons of asbestos-containing sprayed fireproofing on floors 1-40 of the buildings. Above the fortieth floor, non-asbestos alternatives were to be used. This is confirmed by an article which appeared in the New York Times on September 18, 2001: "Anticipating a ban (on the use of asbestos in construction in NY), the builders stopped using the materials by the time they reached the 40th floor of the north tower, the first one to go up…" According to a spokesman for the Port Authority "more than half of the original, asbestos-containing material was later replaced."

It says right in your own link that "more than half of the original, asbestos-containing material was later replaced". This means that a considerable amount was not removed or replaced.

[Blue_Nose]

OPP wrote:

This means that a considerable amount was not removed or replaced.

Quote:

asbestos-containing sprayed fireproofing on floors 1-40 of the buildings.

The planes hit the 94-98th and the 78-84th floors.

Duh.

[OPP]

Blue_Nose wrote:

OPP wrote:

Larry Silverstein is one of the most important pieces in this.

Yeah, the guy arranged the whole thing - fires, structural damage - beforehand with GWB and the New York Fire Department, for insurance purposes... then he blows his cover by revealing his secret plan in an interview on national television.

That "important piece" really puts the conspiracy quacks' arguments in perspective .

I do not believ the NYFD was involved. I do not believe that Larry Silverstein "arranged the whole thing".
I do believe that he slipped up in the documentary, yes. It's rather confusing, however, that your arguments range from first saying that "no one has come forward or slipped up so how do you explain that yada yada yada" to saying that it's nonsense that someone would slip up in this manner.
Stick with one of those, please.

[PluggyRug]

Blue_Nose wrote:

OPP wrote:

This means that a considerable amount was not removed or replaced.

Quote:

asbestos-containing sprayed fireproofing on floors 1-40 of the buildings.

The planes hit the 94-98th and the 78-84th floors.

Duh.

OPP still thinks the towers were built from the top down.

[OPP]

Blue_Nose wrote:

OPP wrote:

This means that a considerable amount was not removed or replaced.

Quote:

asbestos-containing sprayed fireproofing on floors 1-40 of the buildings.

The planes hit the 94-98th and the 78-84th floors.

Duh.

So? Does it not say that it was replaced by another fireproofing?

[Brenda]

[off-topic] Great avatar Pluggy! It makes me itchy
[/off-topic]