"Where did the towers go?" -on 9/11

[T.Horton]

has anybody ever read this grisham book written or released in 2000?

it`s almost prophetic...in that it talks about Islamic terrorism and a planned attack the CIA on American interests. the very next year the towers came down. Blew my damned mind. Not so much his writing (which is brain candy) but his ideas.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Brethren-J.../dp/0440236673

[The Noose]

I said that for me too, her account is difficult to believe but I still think she is worthy of listening to.

From what I understand, she's sort of speculating the use of directed-energy weapons. I find this to be quite fantastical, but from my perspective the events haven't been explained, and I'm willing to listen to various perspectives. She sets up the lack of sufficient material as more so the question to be addressed, the fact that this material is not on the ground constitutes the basis of analysis, more or less. One example is that there wasn't a lot of steel present in the ruins, although they were all steel framed buildings.

Again, I just find it all quite interesting. Also, there is information which is useful on its own. For example, most people are only aware of the collapse of 2 towers. Most people don't know anything about building 7 for example, which was across the street and also collapsed.



I was not aware of this, but based on the video there were in fact a number of other smaller buildings which were grouped with the twin towers which also collapsed. Just simply looking at building 7, its collapse is among the many things which are unaccounted for in the official story. I have in fact read the report from the commission, and I don't recall any mention of building 7. I may be mistaken, but even if they did mention it they did not analyze it very much.

People have argued a lot over building 7 on these forums. In honesty i have never read the official government account, but have read all the posts from people explaining why its true, or at least answering all the 'unexplained events' on 911.

In short, there are plenty of photos and eye witness accounts that explain how building 7 had a lot of damage to its lower regions, and basically it collapsed because it couldnt support its own weight.

Im not going to go into all of it now, as im tired of the arguments. But all i will say is that i watched many of the 'conspiracy theory' videos, and then searched for explanations as to how the planes inflicted enough damage to bring down the towers, the pentagon crash etc etc. And i found there are many good explanations that confirmed to me the official story is true.
But i had to do a fair amount of research first.

A lot of it here.
http://www.debunking911.com/

[- v e t -]

.

.
The New Freedom Tower under construction, took picture
yesterday.

"freedom" tower

what a joke

we're far less free than we were before it was even conceived

[Russian Crushin]

I said that for me too, her account is difficult to believe but I still think she is worthy of listening to.

From what I understand, she's sort of speculating the use of directed-energy weapons. I find this to be quite fantastical, but from my perspective the events haven't been explained, and I'm willing to listen to various perspectives. She sets up the lack of sufficient material as more so the question to be addressed, the fact that this material is not on the ground constitutes the basis of analysis, more or less. One example is that there wasn't a lot of steel present in the ruins, although they were all steel framed buildings.

Again, I just find it all quite interesting. Also, there is information which is useful on its own. For example, most people are only aware of the collapse of 2 towers. Most people don't know anything about building 7 for example, which was across the street and also collapsed.



I was not aware of this, but based on the video there were in fact a number of other smaller buildings which were grouped with the twin towers which also collapsed. Just simply looking at building 7, its collapse is among the many things which are unaccounted for in the official story. I have in fact read the report from the commission, and I don't recall any mention of building 7. I may be mistaken, but even if they did mention it they did not analyze it very much.

You read the 1000 page report and it never mentioned tower 7?

Maybe you should re-read it again

[Russian Crushin]

"freedom" tower

what a joke

we're far less free than we were before it was even conceived

It's not an official name, just one given to it by the media

[- v e t -]

It's not an official name, just one given to it by the media

even worse IMO

hype machines!

[Drunken Cat]

People have argued a lot over building 7 on these forums. In honesty i have never read the official government account, but have read all the posts from people explaining why its true, or at least answering all the 'unexplained events' on 911.

In short, there are plenty of photos and eye witness accounts that explain how building 7 had a lot of damage to its lower regions, and basically it collapsed because it couldnt support its own weight.

Im not going to go into all of it now, as im tired of the arguments. But all i will say is that i watched many of the 'conspiracy theory' videos, and then searched for explanations as to how the planes inflicted enough damage to bring down the towers, the pentagon crash etc etc. And i found there are many good explanations that confirmed to me the official story is true.
But i had to do a fair amount of research first.

A lot of it here.
http://www.debunking911.com/

I have no problem with your perspective, but to me it hasn't been satisfactorily explained, and I quite frankly find some of the so-called "conspiracy theories" somewhat more convincing. Alternative explanations suffer too from a lack of verifiable information and are too speculative, and can't prove the claims they advance. The fact that they are necessarily formulated from the outside looking in (due to the lack of access to official info, etc.) contributes to this, and can't be helped. In fact, Judy Wood's account purports to be the first study (official or not) which is empirically based (she is an expert in material sciences, and uses imagery technology for her study, the use of which she is also an expert in). Again, I find it all quite fantastical, but I also see a lot of value in her work. And you never know, I'm unconvinced by other explanations as well, so to me anything is possible.

[Drunken Cat]

You read the 1000 page report and it never mentioned tower 7?

Maybe you should re-read it again

It was actually more like 240 or so pages.

And the answer is no. Come to think of it, I think it was mentioned, but what was mentioned was that it collapsed. How and why it collapsed was not analyzed, if memory serves my right (and I read it probably in 2005, so excuse me if my memory is not impeccable--although I am confident in saying that it was hardly analyzed).

Have you read it?

[T.Horton]

even worse IMO

hype machines!

exactly what i was thinking. lol

[ИATAS]

has anybody ever read this grisham book written or released in 2000?

it`s almost prophetic...in that it talks about Islamic terrorism and a planned attack the CIA on American interests. the very next year the towers came down. Blew my damned mind. Not so much his writing (which is brain candy) but his ideas.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Brethren-J.../dp/0440236673

8 months before 9/11 I was in a political science class and our teacher one day told us to remember the name Osama bin laden. I still have an exam from the class where I got a bonus question that I wrote "Osama bon ledin" (f'd up the spelling haha).