C D Posters,
Time is a revealer of truth!
Here is proof that the World Trade Center Towels didn't collapsed solely to the two planes crashing into them. I am definitely sure, with certainty. I was suspicious before, but now, my suspicion was confirmed. Proof, you say? Watch the video (below) -- a "Control Demolition" of the Trump Plaza Casino, in N. J., two days ago (A failed business and businessman). One can't help, but see similarities in the two collapses. It is clear (minus the smoke) for all to see! A line from a Marx Brothers film, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" That is, do you trust, the so-called, findings of the 9/11 Commission Report?
I still want to know after all these years:
At best, 9/11 Commission Report should be revised to include the answers to the questions I raised above. They owe it to the many families who loss loved ones. The American people deserves the whole truth. For those you who have loss loved ones, I feel your pain, but let truth have her say. Don't put your head in the sand. Let truth speak to reality and the obvious. All reasonable responses are welcome. For many families this chapter remains opened. CM
@C Mc posted:
Here is proof that the World Trade Center Towels didn't collapsed solely to the two planes crashing into them. I am definitely sure, with certainty. I was suspicious before, but now, my suspicion was confirmed. Proof, you say? Watch the video (below) -- a "Control Demolition" of the Trump Plaza Casino, in N. J., two days ago (A failed business and businessman). One can't help, but see similarities in the two collapses. It is clear (minus the smoke) for all to see! A line from a Marx Brothers film, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" That is, do you trust, the so-called, findings of the 9/11 Commission Report?
In my view, our perception of "similarities" between the collapses of the Trump casino and the WTC towers provide "proof" of nothing other than the content of our perceptions. You're of course welcome to conclude that the similarities you perceive prove whatever you think they prove. But your apparent conviction that the rest of us "can't help but see" the "similarities" you do, and, I assume, from them draw the same conclusions as you, I view as an indefensible reach. I for one assure you that nothing in the collapse of the Trump casino prompts me to question anything about 9/11 Commission's explanation of the collapses of the WTC towers.
And since at least nine of the ten questions you propose at the end of your post assume that your "suspicion" about the WTC towers has in fact been proven, when in my view, no such proof exists, I disagree with your contention that the 9/11 Commission's report should be "revised" to provide answers to them. For example, how could the Commission "revise" its report about the collapses to answer the question "who authorized the controlled collapses?" without ALSO revising its report to conclude that such "controlled collapses" actually occurred? Your revision request doesn't just seek answers to questions; it asks the Commission to reverse some of its core findings. That's not going to happen... because the evidence doesn't support such reversals.
In my view, our perception of "similarities" between the collapses of the Trump casino and the WTC towers provide "proof" of nothing other than the content of our perceptions.
These similarities just show a triple coincidence with very very slim chances of happening ...
For example, how could the Commission "revise" its report about the collapses to answer the question "who authorized the controlled collapses?" without ALSO revising its report to conclude that such "controlled collapses" actually occurred?
The revision should start by the admission that it was a "fixed up" government controlled and essentially dictated undertaking with heavy manipulation from the start ...
It's all very simple ...
Common ground. These theories have been debunked time and time again.
Common ground. These theories have been debunked time and time again.
Problem is that some of "these" are not theories (as the debunkers on the official story line have claimed and would like you to believe ... simple facts are in plain sight !!
The controlled demolition conspiracy is, in fact, a debunked theory.
The controlled demolition conspiracy is, in fact, a debunked theory.
Like I said ... there just were innumerable coincidences that the WTC towers and building 7 collapsed the way they did ... demolition experts couldn't have done the demolition any better. But then, without the official idea of an Osama conspiracy with 13 carpet knife armed terrorits, there would not have been thousands of innocent deaths nor the start of the tyrannical police state rule subjecting the USA to what has become of "the land of the free and home of the brave" ...
Name one "coincidence"
Name one "coincidence"
A building collapsing right into its footprint in the particular manner as seen in the case of three buildings (one of which not even impacted from outside cause ... a rather very slim possibility to happen
Based on what?
Based on what?
based on knowledge from experiences over centuries
(a) how buildings collapse when hit or brought down from an outside source of power ... they tip over, large parts remain standing with other parts just falling off, etc ...
(b) how buildings can be made to collapse completely and do so right into their footprint
So what other event like 9/11 happened to make that comparison?
So what other event like 9/11 happened to make that comparison?
Any controlled demolition of towers or large high buildings shows the same manner of collapse as was seen with the WTC towers ... a recent one was mentioned in the initial post in this thread ...
Except none of those had planes slam into buildings so they are not comparable.
Except none of those had planes slam into buildings so they are not comparable.
Neither did WTC 7 ...
Furthermore, the planes crashing into a building from the side would not have caused a collapse as seen ... and neither would fires (since other towers have experienced bigger and hotter fires and yet their metal structure components did not collapse
No, but WTC7 DID have a catastrophic event that would be categorically different than the other instances you cited.
No, but WTC7 DID have a catastrophic event that would be categorically different than the other instances you cited.
which catastrophic event did the building WTC7 have??
WTC 1&2 according to ilm material had an impact planes of planes (which upon hitting the buildings disintegrated into seemingly nothing ?) hitting them high up and causing fires over several floors, which catastrophic event did WTC7 have??
Brethren,
I wonder why they didn't use a plane instead of dynamite demolish Trump Casino since you believe it was not a control demolition that brought down those buildings minutes apart? CM
Gee, I don't know, two super skyscrapers falling and hitting it on the way down?
Gee, I don't know, two super skyscrapers falling and hitting it on the way down?
Are we talking about the same event? WTC 7 was not hit by the two other buildings when they collapsed into their own footprint (as can be seen on TV coverage over several hours).
There were other buildings closer to WTC 1 & 2 and yet they did not collapse from the type of damages by falling debris ... and are still standing ... and why would WTC 7 collapse exactly in the fashion a controlled demolition would produce when it was hit sideways by some small debris hours before ????
Nebulous nicely worded "explanations" .... which have not held up to experts and architects (including several with high reputation) from across the USA. Some of the story in the article to which you linked leaves questions ... e.g. the ideas proposed about fires inside the building having been caused by debris from the collapse of one of the other towers ...
Oh brother Wolfgang. We know what happened, you latch on to every conspiracy theory out there so this is pointless.
Oh brother Wolfgang. We know what happened, you latch on to every conspiracy theory out there so this is pointless.
Too many of those matters called conspiracy theories by those responsible for such evil (and their mass media outlets) have turned out to have been the "conspiracy" reality ....
You know, there was a plate once which lay on the floor in broken pieces at the feet of my son and my daughter .... and I dared to have the "conspiracy theory" that they broke the plate by their actions. Hmn ...their unanimous debunk of my silly conspiracy story was that the plate jumped out of their hands and crashed itself on the floor and therefore they had nothing to do with it.
Wolfgang,
Could it be that the plate was broken when your son received it and it just fell apart? CM
Could it be that the plate was broken when your son received it and it just fell apart?
sure ... before anything, the plate just fell apart ... that stupid thing, it must have conspired against my children to get them in trouble.
What happen to the insurance monies from the collapse of the twin towers? Follow the dollar, it may help one to understand the control collapse of the buildings. CM
@C Mc posted:
What happen to the insurance monies from the collapse of the twin towers? Follow the dollar, it may help one to understand the control collapse of the buildings.
There is no evidence of the controlled collapse of either WTC building on 9/11... none.
There is no evidence of the controlled collapse of either WTC building on 9/11... none.
Like there is no evidence for a murder, just the beheaded dead corpse .... and a few other details in the situation
Bill,
Thanks for sharing your conviction again. Do you, by any chance, have an answer to my question above?
As for your:
"There is no evidence of the controlled collapse of either WTC building on 9/11... none."
Truth may be a slow walker, but he will bring reality after many years of denial by so many. CM
@C Mc posted:
Thanks for sharing your conviction again.
My claim that there is no evidence of a controlled collapse of either WTC building is more than a conviction, CM; it's also an assertion of fact.
Do you, by any chance, have an answer to my question above?
According to Wikipedia, the insurance payout on the losses of the WTC buildings totaled $4.55 billion - less than what the insured sought, but more than the insurance company initially wanted to pay. Here's the summary from the introduction to the Wikipedia article on real estate developer Larry Silverstein:
Larry A. Silverstein (born May 30, 1931) is an American businessman.[1] Among his real estate projects, he is the developer of the rebuilt World Trade Center complex in Lower Manhattan, New York City, as well as one of New York's tallest residential towers at 30 Park Place, where he owns a home.[2] His worth has been estimated at $3.5 billion as of 2016.[3]
Silverstein was born in Brooklyn, and became involved in real estate, together with his father, establishing Silverstein Properties. Silverstein separated from his business partner, Bernard Mendik, in 1977, and bought a number of large office buildings in Midtown and Lower Manhattan in the late 1970s. In 1980, Silverstein won a bid from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to construct 7 World Trade Center on Vesey Street, just north of the main World Trade Center site. Silverstein was interested in acquiring the original World Trade Center complex, and put in a bid when the Port Authority put it up for lease in 2000. Silverstein won the bid when a deal between the initial winner and the Port Authority fell through, and he signed the lease on July 24, 2001.
Soon after the September 11 attacks, in 2001, Silverstein declared his intent to rebuild, though he and his insurers became embroiled in a multi-year dispute over whether the attacks had constituted one event or two under the terms of the insurance policy, which provided for a maximum of $3.55 billion coverage per event.[4] A settlement was reached in 2007, with insurers agreeing to pay out $4.55 billion,[5][6] which was not as much as Silverstein had sought. Silverstein also ran into multiple disputes with other parties in the rebuilding effort, including with the Port Authority. In an agreement reached in April 2006, Silverstein retained rights to build three office towers (150 Greenwich Street, 175 Greenwich Street, and 200 Greenwich Street), while One World Trade Center (previously referred to as the "Freedom Tower") would be owned by the Port Authority, as would Tower Five, which it would have the option of leasing to a different private developer and having redesigned as a residential building.[7]
The Wikipedia article provides a helpful summary of the course of events that led to the insurance payouts and the new buildings now in place or still under construction.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
