Audio of the explosives which brought down WTC 7

[SAWYER]

What does your religion think about filth such as the Simpsons?

 

[Cogman]

IT IS! i tried it and that shit didn't work! A CONSPIRACY I TELL YOU!

i heard bush owns the company.

Only after he weaseled it away from islamic free masons. He sold them the lunar rover, which we all know doesn't exist.

 

[kylebisme]

...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury

Yeah, Sawer's bringing up plans hitting different buildings hours before WTC 7 coming down was much like the Chewbacca defense.

Also a muslim would never kill another muslim or have sex out of wedlock. Completely true.

Well, lets weigh the evidence. What evidence do you have to suggest the they were Muslims?

 

[Patranus]

Yeah, Sawer's bringing up plans hitting different buildings hours before WTC 7 coming down was much like the Chewbacca defense.

No, it is generally agreed upon that what you are spouting doesn't make sense.

 

[Sclamoz]

Well, lets weigh the evidence. What evidence do you have to suggest the they were Muslims?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_al-Mihdhar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawaf_al-Hazmi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta_al_Sayed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waleed_al-Shehri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wail_al-Shehri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulaziz_al-Omari

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satam_al-Suqami

Feel free to provide us with the identities of those who really did it.

 

[kylebisme]

What does your religion say about the treatment of women? beheading? blowing up innocent people?

I'm no adherent of any particular religion, but I believe woman deliver exactly the same rights as men, and I'm outright against blowing up innocent people. As for beheading, I think it's arguably more humane than the electric chair. In regard to your later question about The Simpsons, the early seasons were the best.

 

[kylebisme]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_al-Mihdhar

Wiki even suggests he wasn't a praciticing Mulism:

Al-Bayoumi claimed he was merely being charitable in assisting the two seemingly out-of-place Muslims with moving to San Diego, where he helped them find an apartment near his own, co-signed their lease, and gave them $1,500 to help pay their rent.

If there is any evidence in the other Wiki articles to suggest they were practicing Muslims, please quote it.

Edit: My dyslexia got the best of me, reading "out-of-practice" rather than out "out-of-place". Regardless, I didn't see any notable evidence on the matter in that article. If I missed something, please quote it.

Feel free to provide us with the identities of those who really did it.

I'd like to know, which is why I hope to build the political support to reopen the investigation so we might figure that out.

 

[HendrixFan]

You've changed my mind. Bush blew up the WTC so he could start a war in Afghanistan for reasons that aren't readily apparent to me.

The rabbit hole goes deeper! Bush blew up the WTC so he could start a war in Afghanistan but also so that he could blame Iraq and invade them instead and have everyone forget about Afghanistan and say that he doesn't care if we ever catch bin Laden and have everyone focus on Saddam instead. Why didn't Bush blow up the WTC and blame it on Iraq to start with? That's the scary part, there must be a good reason for the runaround with Afghanistan. Bush is so smart I don't think we will ever figure it out.

 

[kylebisme]

Well the Bush administration and their cohorts obviously used the attacks as an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, made blindingly obvious by the fact that the Taliban offered to give up bin Laden, if we could provide evidence to prove he was behind 9/11. However, I doubt Bush was behind the plan. After all, he was sitting around looking like a lost puppy dog while the towers were burning.

 

[xj0hnx]

1. How do you account for the irrefutable evidence of nano-muslims in the rubble of tower 7?

I chuckled.

I understand that it's a difficult matter to deal with, but until we do, we are letting the real terrorist masterminds behind 9/11 win.

Who are the real terrorist masterminds behind 9/11?

 

[kylebisme]

As I've said:

I'd like to know, which is why I hope to build the political support to reopen the investigation so we might figure that out.

 

[Sclamoz]

Wiki even suggests he wasn't a praciticing Mulism:


If there is any evidence in the other Wiki articles to suggest they were practicing Muslims, please quote it.

Edit: My dyslexia got the best of me, reading "out-of-practice" rather than out "out-of-place". Regardless, I didn't see any notable evidence on the matter in that article. If I missed something, please quote it.

Evidence besides the fact he fought alongside the Taliban and the mujaheddin in Bosnia and was a member of Al-Qeada? That while in the US he attended the Mosque of the radical American Iman Anwar al-Awlaki that Obama recently authorized to be killed?

Speaking of Anwar al-Awlaki:

Although he hesitated to shake hands with women, he patronized prostitutes. Al-Awlaki was arrested in San Diego in August 1996 and in April 1997 for soliciting prostitutes. In the first instance, he pled guilty to a lesser charge on condition of entering an AIDS education program and paying $400 in fines and restitution.The second time, he pled guilty to soliciting a prostitute, and was sentenced to three years' probation, fined $240, and ordered to perform 12 days of community service.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

If it was a conspiracy then why not just bomb the buildings and say it was terrorists?

Why crash planes into them?

Did they think people would have a hard time believing terrorist would bomb a building!?!!

They could have bombed the buildings and said it was Iraqi/Persian terrorists. The invasion of Iraq/Iran was their end game right?

The conspiracy doesn't make any fucking sense.

 

[NeoV]

I have a question - what was accomplished by 'demolishing' WTC7 - even if your ridiculous theory were true?

Are you somehow connecting this to towers 1 and 2 coming down?

 

[kylebisme]

Evidence besides the fact he fought alongside the Taliban and the mujaheddin in Bosnia and was a member of Al-Qeada?

Yeah, that suggests connections to US intelligence agencies just as much if not more than Islam:

The mujahideen were significantly financed and armed (and are alleged to have been trained) by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the administrations of Carter and Reagan, and also by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan under Zia-ul-Haq, Iran, the People's Republic of China and several Western European countries. Pakistan's secret service, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was used as an intermediary for most of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance. One of the CIA's longest and most expensive covert operations was the supplying of billions of dollars in arms to the Afghan mujahideen militants. The arms included Stinger missiles, shoulder-fired, antiaircraft weapons that they used against Soviet helicopters and that later were in circulation among terrorists who have fired such weapons at commercial airliners. Osama bin Laden was among the recipients of U.S. arms. Between $3–$20 billion in U.S. funds were funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons, including Stinger surface-to-air missiles.

Such history puts Mujaheddin members in an optimal position to be duped into being patsies.

That while in the US he attended the Mosque of the radical American Iman Anwar al-Awlaki that Obama recently authorized to be killed?

According to the FBI years after this supposedly happened. Besides, considering the fact our government never conducted a proper criminal investigation into the attacks, one can't rightly take them at their word on such matters.

 

[Sclamoz]

Yeah, that suggests connections to US intelligence agencies just as much if not more than Islam:


Such history puts Mujaheddin members in an optimal position to be duped into being patsies.

How can you be so stupid? He wasn't fighting with the Taliban against the USSR he was fighting against the Northern Alliance who were backed by the CIA. HE WAS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE. If you're going to pretend to be an expert you should at least know the very basics.

According to the FBI years after this supposedly happened. Besides, considering the fact our government never conducted a proper criminal investigation into the attacks, one can't rightly take them at their word on such matters.

Feel free to disprove it. We all know you can't. You're just some pathetic guy who thinks he knows something despite the fact you have no evidence. Guess what that makes you? Fucking crazy.

One other thing, Awlaki's ties to the 9/11 hijackers were first brought up in the 9/11 commission report "not years later according to the FBI" and with no proper criminal investigation.

 

[xj0hnx]

I'd like to know, which is why I hope to build the political support to reopen the investigation so we might figure that out.

If you had a suspect, or an end game, the idea that there was a conspiracy would make more sense, it would be more compelling.

If it was a conspiracy then why not just bomb the buildings and say it was terrorists?

Why crash planes into them?

Did they think people would have a hard time believing terrorist would bomb a building!?!!

They could have bombed the buildings and said it was Iraqi/Persian terrorists. The invasion of Iraq/Iran was their end game right?

The conspiracy doesn't make any fucking sense.

I have a question - what was accomplished by 'demolishing' WTC7 - even if your ridiculous theory were true?

Are you somehow connecting this to towers 1 and 2 coming down?

These are my questions too. Give us an end game, give us a reason to believe that the thousands of people that would need to be involved with this conspiracy would remain silent.

As far as the video, how do we know that someone didn't make it after the fact?

 

[JSt0rm]

dude I wouldn't call that proof I'm sorry

 

[kylebisme]

The conspiracy doesn't make any fucking sense.

The notion that the buildings were brought down without explosives makes no sense, which is why neither the official investigations or anybody else has been able to provide any semblance of experimental confirmation to prove otherwise, and why there is mounds of evidence to the contrary, some of which mentioned in the OP. Why the buildings were brought down the terrorists who did it once we figure out who they are. However, see below:

...what was accomplished by 'demolishing' WTC7...

It had a lot of government offices which were involved in various investigations, such as the SEC offices holding all sorts of files on Enron, and apparently they have no record of what they lost. Also not that the particular wing of the Pentagon which was hit was the offices of Naval intelligence who were investigating the 2.3 trillion dollars Rumsfeld reported as unaccounted for the day before the attacks. Anyway, as I said to Rocksteady, we really have to figure out who before we can figure out why, but the likely answer seems to be that they did it for the money.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

The notion that the buildings were brought down without explosives makes no sense, which is why neither the official investigations or anybody else has been able to provide any semblance of experimental confirmation to prove otherwise, and why there is mounds of evidence to the contrary, some of which mentioned in the OP. Why the buildings were brought down the terrorists who did it once we figure out who they are. However, see below:


It had a lot of government offices which were involved in various investigations, such as the SEC offices holding all sorts of files on Enron, and apparently they have no record of what they lost. Also not that the particular wing of the Pentagon which was hit was the offices of Naval intelligence who were investigating the 2.3 trillion dollars Rumsfeld reported as unaccounted for the day before the attacks. Anyway, as I said to Rocksteady, we really have to figure out who before we can figure out why, but the likely answer seems to be that they did it for the money.

Answer my question. Why crash planes into them if they were blown up???

That is the massive hole in the 911 conspiracy.

Just blow them up and blame terrorists.
Or fly a plane into them and blame terrorists.

Why do both?

And even if you did both, why not just blame terrorists!? Say they planted bombs and flew planes into em. Say they were covering their bases.

 

[xj0hnx]

The notion that the buildings were brought down without explosives makes no sense, which is why neither the official investigations or anybody else has been able to provide any semblance of experimental confirmation to prove otherwise, and why there is mounds of evidence to the contrary, some of which mentioned in the OP. Why the buildings were brought down the terrorists who did it once we figure out who they are. However, see below:

Without explosives? Did you see the fireballs made by the planes? On the note of experimental confirmation, well, that's all they can do as no one exactly has a few planes and some skyscrapers to fly them into to try to replicate the scenario. Fact is they can only reproduce small pieces of what happened, and that is never going to give any real evidence of what really happened during a disaster of that magnitude.

Also, do you know what, and how long it takes to set up a demo? There's just no way that you could set up a demo in buildings that were being used daily, and no one notice. Of course if you did somehow have an invisible crew that could work at miracle speeds, they would have to be fine with knowing they were going to be killings possibly thousands of innocent Americans and still remain silent to this day.

 

[kylebisme]

He wasn't fighting with the Taliban against the USSR he was fighting against the Northern Alliance who were backed by the CIA.

Neither the Taliban nor the Northern Alliance formed until years after the Soviets backed out, and as I quoted from Wiki above, even "Osama bin Laden was among the recipients of U.S. arms", see this article for more details. Furthermore, the Taliban was hanging out with oil barons in Texas in 1997.

...you have no evidence.

Please feel free to address the evidence I presented in the OP by responding to the questions here.

Why crash planes into them if they were blown up?

Perhaps they did it to throw off people like you. I can't say for sure though, as I wasn't in on the scheme, and I don't know who was.

If you had a suspect, or an end game, the idea that there was a conspiracy would make more sense, it would be more compelling.

Rather if I had at least two suspects and and end game, then I'd be proposing a conspiracy theory. But I've got neither, nor any interest in compelling anyone. Rather I'm interested in discussing the evidence which disproves the your favored 9/11 conspiracy theory so you will agree with me on the need to figure out what actually happened.

On the note of experimental confirmation...

Computer based simulations can be used to model such things, and even simplified scale models can demonstrate general principles of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings. It can't be done with the official story of what happened to them though, as those stories stand in flagrant contradiction to the laws of physics.

That said, NIST even built a full 3D model of WTC 7, but they couldn't make it come anywhere close to free fall. I'd love to get my hands on the model data and tweak it to demonstrate how WTC 7 actually was brought down, but they refuse to release it. What little video they did show of it seems to have been taken off their site recently, but you can see a copy here.

Also, do you know what, and how long it takes to set up a demo?

Yeah, it was obviously one hell of a scheme, likely done under cover of the massive elevator renovation project which had been going on in the preceding months.

 

[xj0hnx]

Rather I'm interested in discussing the evidence which disproves the your favored 9/11 conspiracy theory so you will agree with me on the need to figure out what actually happened.

My favorite theory? You know something about me that I don't?

Computer based simulations can be used to model such things, and even simplified scale models to demonstrate general principles what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings. It can't be done with the official story of what happened to them though, as those stories stand in flagrant contradiction to the laws of physics.

No, they can't. Computers don't create random chaos, they generate output based on human input. They can make guesses, based on humans educated guess.

Yeah, it was obviously one hell of a scheme, likely done under cover of the massive elevator renovation project which had been going on in the preceding months.

It would take a lot more than an elevator renovation.

 

[woolfe9999]

The guy who is completely wrong here, Kyle, is doing a lot better job arguing his side than his opponents.

I'm not sure I want to spend the time to once again get into the response to his points, but if someone is going to respond it'd be nice to see a better argument than name-calling.

Because his argument is idiotic and self-refuting. Let's see, hmm. You can hear a sound of indeterminate type from several hundreds yards off, maybe from the building or maybe from elsewhere, then a building comes down. Assume for the sake of argument that the sound is coming from the building, can you think of another reason you'd hear noise from a building within 3 seconds before it totally collapses due to structural instability?

Is any further comment required?

- wolf

 

[ModestGamer]

You've changed my mind. Bush blew up the WTC so he could start a war in Afghanistan for reasons that aren't readily apparent to me. Now what? Tomorrow morning I'm going to walk into the world armed with this new knowledge and do what? Where is this going? The investigation is over, the buildings are gone, the guy's who flew the alleged planes are dead, the passengers in those planes are all living in a nameless country under assumed names for reasons not readily apparent to me, and we can't figure out where they are. So hear I am, a loyal minion of the "Bush did it" camp with nowhere to go and nothing to do. I ask again, where is this going?

you just gotta admit the timing was perfectly convinient. You had enron absolutely skull fucking california for billions.

His approval rating was something like 30%

He had no valid reason to invade Iraq.

then randomly a gift from Allah appear and now we have a new pipline in afghanistant and acess to Iraqi oil and infastructure contracts.

we how could this have not worked any better.

to determine the reason behind a crime motive must first be established. the motive in this case was

Oil