Polemos - 911 Demolition
June 9th, 2006, search relatedRelated posts :: Polemos - logically accounted controlled demolition :: Polemos - logically accounted controlled demolition :: Polemos - 911 Demolition :: Polemos - 911 Demolition
Tags: 911 demolition
On 08/06/2006, at 7:04 AM, That Pete wrote:
> So it is all those taken together that convinces you that Bush blew
> up three WTC buildings? So if one is proven false, your whole
> conspiracy implodes? Or is there one item that by itself proves that
> Bush did it definitively?
Are you asking for a proof from Steven E Jones essay that shows ‘Bush
did it’? I’m not sure you understand what a proof is or what Jones’
article is actually about. Now if you’ve read the paper then you
should realise that it tests the hypothesis that controlled
demolition can be the only logical cause of the tower collapses
contrary to the official conspiracy theory that the hijacked planes
crashing and burning caused spontaneous collapse of not just the two
towers but also WTC7.
Take WTC7 for instance and you can watch it collapse here:
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/…
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/…
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/…
The main contention for the demolition theory is that this
symmetrical collapse at free fall speed can only be explained by the
simultaneous catastrophic failure of all the main steel support
columns at once across multiple floors. Lets ask bobG what he thinks
as he’s an engineer … Bob? Don’t steel frame towers tend to fail at
key stress points and topple over rather than crumbling like a house
of cards? How can we best explain the way WTC7 completely collapses
symmetrically with no resistance from its steel skeleton in near free
fall with a debris radius of just 70 feet according to FEMA who
actually called this collapse an ‘implosion’?
Now this controlled demolition theory says absolutely nothing about
who planted the explosives, it’s merely an alternative hypothesis to
the unquestioned assumption that all 3 steel frame skyscrapers
somehow spontaneously failed, and they were the first and as yet the
last such buildings to collapse like that anywhere in the world. The
contention here is that controlled demolition best explains those
collapses.
So, if someone demolished the New York offices of the CIA and NSA
along with the mayors bunker, into a neat pile of rubble who could it
have been? If Osama Bin Laden was capable of coordinating from a cave
in Afghanistan multiple simultaneous hijackings in US domestic
airspace, sneaking past the guard of the US intelligence services
despite international warnings and on the very day when NORAD was
apparently preoccupied running defence games simulating multiple
simultaneous hijackings in US domestic airspace, then why not finish
the job and bomb the towers and CIA? Makes sense to me.
One possible explanation for the 911 demolitions is that Al Qaeda not
only infiltrated the US military and intelligence but also WTC
security at a time when the president’s brother Marvin Bush was
apparently a director of Securacom the company responsible for WTC
security. I’m guessing the incredible potential embarrassment to the
US federal executive led to a massive clean up operation which
quickly destroyed most of the physical evidence of what was the
biggest mass murder in US history. At least that’s my best case
scenario, that US military and intelligence services have been
completely compromised by infiltrators working for the benefit of Al
Qaeda. The terrorists are already anyone, anywhere and everywhere.
What do you reckon That Pete?
Cheers,
Malcolm
**********************************
Dr Malcolm Riddoch
An-archos community networks
http://an-archos.com
