What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[apollofire]

I dont think US Govts are ready to tell the complete truth bez their deficiencies will be exposed as well

[1714028508]

1714028508

[1714028508]

1714028508

[1714028508]

1714028508

[1714028508]

1714028508

[1714028508]

1714028508

[tvbcof]

what mystery ?

It was a controlled demolition
i said this while watching it live as it happened,
anyone that does not think it was a controlled demolition is just blind, ignorant, brainwashed, gullible,
and has no idea about basic physics.

The planes and theatre were just to help the propoganda

The twin towers were also built using aspestos through the entire buildings and had to be demolished anyway,
but doing it properly would have been ridiculously expensive.

Estimates I've heard are around $1,000,000,000.  Absurd, but the asbestos scare was pretty powerful and made a lot of people a lot of money in 'abatement' and the standards got out of whack in order to perpetuate the take.  I'm sure that (non-evil non-Jew) Larry Silverstein would rather have the 4 billion or whatever in insurance money than coughing up the 1 billion in demolition costs if done to code.

[capedbaldy]

9/11 is too much conspiracy but what I believe is US still hiding some truths

[Spendulus]

what mystery ?

It was a controlled demolition...

How come other 911 Truthers claim it was an uncontrolled demolition then?

Sure looks uncontrolled, those towers went down all over the place.

....
The twin towers were also built using aspestos through the entire buildings and had to be demolished anyway,
but doing it properly would have been ridiculously expensive.

Estimates I've heard are around $1,000,000,000.  Absurd, but the asbestos scare was pretty powerful and made a lot of people a lot of money in 'abatement' and the standards got out of whack in order to perpetuate the take.  I'm sure that (non-evil non-Jew) Larry Silverstein would rather have the 4 billion or whatever in insurance money than coughing up the 1 billion in demolition costs if done to code.

If evidence had indicated insurance fraud the insurance companies would have been seriously looking for it, and it's reasonable to think they would have found it.   The number of people that would have been involved and the huge amount of money the insurance companies would have paid to get one of them to sing.

[BADecker]

what mystery ?

It was a controlled demolition...

How come other 911 Truthers claim it was an uncontrolled demolition then?

Sure looks uncontrolled, those towers went down all over the place.

....
The twin towers were also built using aspestos through the entire buildings and had to be demolished anyway,
but doing it properly would have been ridiculously expensive.

Estimates I've heard are around $1,000,000,000.  Absurd, but the asbestos scare was pretty powerful and made a lot of people a lot of money in 'abatement' and the standards got out of whack in order to perpetuate the take.  I'm sure that (non-evil non-Jew) Larry Silverstein would rather have the 4 billion or whatever in insurance money than coughing up the 1 billion in demolition costs if done to code.

If evidence had indicated insurance fraud the insurance companies would have been seriously looking for it, and it's reasonable to think they would have found it.   The number of people that would have been involved and the huge amount of money the insurance companies would have paid to get one of them to sing.

However, if Silverstein would save $1,000,000,000 regarding the asbestos cleanup, what's a measly, say, $1,000,000 payoff to the insurance companies to give him his insurance payment while he returns the payment under the table?

In other words, it is reasonable to say that Silverstein could easily buy a phony insurance settlement for a $million, maybe less, and save most of the asbestos cleanup money. And who knows how much the Saudi's and their money played into the thing to, not only cover any losses Silverstein might have had, but to make him a tidy profit at the same time?

Not only is there way too little known fact to rule out inside job, but there is so little potential accuracy in the official story, that inside job is the prime suspect.

[Spendulus]

what mystery ?

It was a controlled demolition...

How come other 911 Truthers claim it was an uncontrolled demolition then?

Sure looks uncontrolled, those towers went down all over the place.

....
The twin towers were also built using aspestos through the entire buildings and had to be demolished anyway,
but doing it properly would have been ridiculously expensive.

Estimates I've heard are around $1,000,000,000.  Absurd, but the asbestos scare was pretty powerful and made a lot of people a lot of money in 'abatement' and the standards got out of whack in order to perpetuate the take.  I'm sure that (non-evil non-Jew) Larry Silverstein would rather have the 4 billion or whatever in insurance money than coughing up the 1 billion in demolition costs if done to code.

If evidence had indicated insurance fraud the insurance companies would have been seriously looking for it, and it's reasonable to think they would have found it.   The number of people that would have been involved and the huge amount of money the insurance companies would have paid to get one of them to sing.

However, if Silverstein would save $1,000,000,000 regarding the asbestos cleanup, what's a measly, say, $1,000,000 payoff to the insurance companies to give him his insurance payment while he returns the payment under the table?

In other words, it is reasonable to say that Silverstein could easily buy a phony insurance settlement for a $million....

That's idiotic.  There is no such thing as a "$1M payoff to the insurance co to give him $4B."  But hey, what should we expect from a 911 Truther?

[BADecker]

what mystery ?

It was a controlled demolition...

How come other 911 Truthers claim it was an uncontrolled demolition then?

Sure looks uncontrolled, those towers went down all over the place.

....
The twin towers were also built using aspestos through the entire buildings and had to be demolished anyway,
but doing it properly would have been ridiculously expensive.

Estimates I've heard are around $1,000,000,000.  Absurd, but the asbestos scare was pretty powerful and made a lot of people a lot of money in 'abatement' and the standards got out of whack in order to perpetuate the take.  I'm sure that (non-evil non-Jew) Larry Silverstein would rather have the 4 billion or whatever in insurance money than coughing up the 1 billion in demolition costs if done to code.

If evidence had indicated insurance fraud the insurance companies would have been seriously looking for it, and it's reasonable to think they would have found it.   The number of people that would have been involved and the huge amount of money the insurance companies would have paid to get one of them to sing.

However, if Silverstein would save $1,000,000,000 regarding the asbestos cleanup, what's a measly, say, $1,000,000 payoff to the insurance companies to give him his insurance payment while he returns the payment under the table?

In other words, it is reasonable to say that Silverstein could easily buy a phony insurance settlement for a $million....

That's idiotic.  There is no such thing as a "$1M payoff to the insurance co to give him $4B."  But hey, what should we expect from a 911 Truther?

I think I am beginning to see your problem, Spendy. Either you can't read, or you won't.

First, nobody said there was a $1 million payoff. But what's the use of money if you can't purchase things, right?

Second, it would have been the APPEARANCE of an insurance settlement that was purchased. And the amount of the sale wouldn't necessarily have had to be $1m. In fact, depending on how the Saudi's play into the picture, the sale might have been very small.

Third, the insurance settlement probably would have had to actually have been done. But that doesn't mean that funds hadn't been returned to the people controlling the insurance company even before the settlement went through.

Right in this forum we have at least one thread about the Panama Papers. Does this mean that there are no other companies doing this kind of thing? Of course not. And you don't even need a Panama Papers kind of company to handle the details for you if you know what you are doing.

The point? Silverstein funds could be all over the place, but simply not in his name. And, what better way for the top insurance people in those insurance companies to get the money from their companies into their personal control, than by paying Silverstein out of the company funds, and then suddenly becoming trustee of the trusts that Silverstein was formerly trustee of, a trust that owned, say, a few million in property here and there. And each of the other insurance guys did the same.

I mean, this is all speculation. But deals like this go on all the time.



Here is one that you can do. Put your house in trust; let the trust be the owner. Let a different trust be the trustee of the trust that owns your house, and you be the trustee of this, second trust. Write it up in the Trust paperwork that a certain signature is the signatory. It can be any signature. But, make a signature stamp to have the designated signature, so that any person that who has the signature stamp can virtually control the trust. Then, sell the house. But don't sell it, really. Rather, turn the signature stamp over to the new trustee of the second trust, for the cash he gives you. Nobody knows the house was sold, so to speak, because it wasn't. No sales tax or other fees.

[Spendulus]

.....Silverstein funds could be all over the place, but simply not in his name. And, what better way for the top insurance people in those insurance companies to get the money from their companies into their personal control, than by paying Silverstein out of the company funds, and then suddenly becoming trustee of the trusts that Silverstein was formerly trustee of, a trust that owned, say, a few million in property here and there. And each of the other insurance guys did the same.

I mean, this is all speculation....

Bah.  Yah, you are using "speculation" to malign individuals and assert they are responsible for 3000 murders.  Because, yeah.  The "Evil Jew" theory of causation.  "Must be a Jew, so must be evil, so must be the cause of the 911 atrocity."  Only a true cunt would dream of saying such a thing.

[vokain]

.....Silverstein funds could be all over the place, but simply not in his name. And, what better way for the top insurance people in those insurance companies to get the money from their companies into their personal control, than by paying Silverstein out of the company funds, and then suddenly becoming trustee of the trusts that Silverstein was formerly trustee of, a trust that owned, say, a few million in property here and there. And each of the other insurance guys did the same.

I mean, this is all speculation....

Bah.  Yah, you are using "speculation" to malign individuals and assert they are responsible for 3000 murders.  Because, yeah.  The "Evil Jew" theory of causation.  "Must be a Jew, so must be evil, so must be the cause of the 911 atrocity."  Only a true cunt would dream of saying such a thing.

All the Jews in my life are really, absurdly good people that I'm lucky to have, FWIW

[TECSHARE]

1- Explain how the seismic record supports YOUR argument. After all you were the first one to bring it up claiming it supported your argument. He who claims proves. Pointing this burden of proof back at me without explaining your own point is a logical fallacy.

2- Explain the precise mechanism that makes the force of gravity transfer laterally to throw 4 ton hunks of steel 600 feet sideways multiple times in every direction, as well as propel debris in an upward arc in violation of Newtons first law of motion by violating the forces of inertia and gravity.

3- Explain how two 110 story buildings fall at a rate of speed that demonstrates little to no resistance from thousands of supports designed with thousands of percent of redundancy thru the path of most resistance.

4- Explain how building 7, according to NIST itself fell at free fall speeds for over 2 seconds REQUIRING the synchronous removal of ALL support structures in those levels in order to be possible for any frame of time.

5- Explain who is offering this billion dollar payout for talking about the coordination of the attacks.

6- Explain how about 12 stories of a building was able to crush the other 98 stories completely to the ground without itself being destroyed, and how a similar effect could be repeated again in the other tower in violation of Newton's 3rd law of motion.

7- Explain how a hurricane is a "static load"

8- Explain how kerosene fires could weaken the steel structures enough to cause a complete collapse of both towers in spite of not being even capable of reaching sufficient temperatures to do this let alone long enough burn times to do so EVEN IF they did (which they didn't).

9- Explain how planes could impart sufficient kinetic energy to completely collapse the structures in spite of them being specifically designed to be able to withstand this exact scenario.

10- Explain how temperatures in the 800-1000 Kelvin range were created in the debris pile 5 days after the attack as measured by NASA satellites.


You demand accountability for my statements over and over again (which I have been providing) yet repeatedly gloss over and just ignore anything that does not confirm your own bias. Convenient you do not have to provide any evidence in response to these points. In your mind denial is evidence enough.

If evidence had indicated insurance fraud the insurance companies would have been seriously looking for it, and it's reasonable to think they would have found it.   The number of people that would have been involved and the huge amount of money the insurance companies would have paid to get one of them to sing.

Yes, they would be looking for a bullet in the head for themselves and their whole family as well.

You are thinking of a word, "resistance."   But you don't know whether that is 0.001% reduction in the speed of a building's fall or 20%.

Note Tecshare brought in what he thought was a valid point to refute the tower easily collapsing, that it was built to withstand 20x static load.  I simply showed that it experienced in excess of 120x load at the initial failure.  So his own logic REQUIRES THE BUILDING TO FAIL WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES.  And the same happens as soon as I plug in numbers into "resistance."  Your argument becomes an argument against your own position, dude.   Your problem, not mine.

But hey, go scurry off and watch a Michael Moore film on how the Evil Bush did it.  Then slither back all charged up and tell us about those Evil Jews.

Oh really? Too bad that 2000% over engineered metric was for JUST THE OUTER COLUMNS. The outer columns only supported about 40% of the total load. All you are capable of doing is twisting words any lying since you haven't a leg to stand on. Again, no matter how much weight the building could withstand, it still doesn't explain how your explanation VIOLATED NEWTONS 3RD LAW OF MOTION by having 12 floors destroy 98 floors without itself being destroyed. Your strategy is much like that of a customer service employee, waste their time until they are tired of having their time wasted and hang up. P.S. Michael Moore is a worthless sack of shit.

....

I noticed you are using an old numbered list to attempt to create even more confusion.....

If these questions are not settled, it isn't okay for you to just move on.  And they're not.  Don't worry, all of your ten questions can be easily debunked.

Now, what about that rather laughable "free fall speed?"  Let's hear where and how exactly you get to that conclusion?   Because it sure isn't obvious from the seismic record.  That shows relatively low levels for ten seconds, then fifteen seconds of heavy impacts.  Maybe you think stuff from the top of the building show impact first, then last of all stuff from the bottom? 

Come on, let's hear the Truther view.  Because I don't see how a calculation of "free fall time" using the absolute tip of the WTC has any relation to a collapse of the whole thing from the 78th floor.

Re run a couple of those old propaganda movies like Loose Change, and get yourself an answer and present it.

First of all, its very interesting that you are criticizing me for moving on without addressing questions as you do EXACTLY THAT. Second of all, I DID NO SUCH THING. I simply rearranged the former topics, so you can stick that right where you pull your answers from. You don't just get to declare something debunked and pretend like it has been addressed. Be a man and not a little crybaby bitch running away and lying when you get cornered, explain yourself like I have been doing over and over as you twist words and ignore the laws of physics.

[Spendulus]

1- Explain how the seismic record supports YOUR argument. After all you were the first one to bring it up claiming it supported your argument. He who claims proves. Pointing this burden of proof back at me without explaining your own point is a logical fallacy.

2- Explain the precise mechanism that makes the force of gravity transfer laterally to throw 4 ton hunks of steel 600 feet sideways multiple times in every direction, as well as propel debris in an upward arc in violation of Newtons first law of motion by violating the forces of inertia and gravity.

3- Explain how two 110 story buildings fall at a rate of speed that demonstrates little to no resistance from thousands of supports designed with thousands of percent of redundancy thru the path of most resistance.

4- Explain how building 7, according to NIST itself fell at free fall speeds for over 2 seconds REQUIRING the synchronous removal of ALL support structures in those levels in order to be possible for any frame of time.

5- Explain who is offering this billion dollar payout for talking about the coordination of the attacks.

6- Explain how about 12 stories of a building was able to crush the other 98 stories completely to the ground without itself being destroyed, and how a similar effect could be repeated again in the other tower in violation of Newton's 3rd law of motion.

7- Explain how a hurricane is a "static load"

8- Explain how kerosene fires could weaken the steel structures enough to cause a complete collapse of both towers in spite of not being even capable of reaching sufficient temperatures to do this let alone long enough burn times to do so EVEN IF they did (which they didn't).

9- Explain how planes could impart sufficient kinetic energy to completely collapse the structures in spite of them being specifically designed to be able to withstand this exact scenario.

10- Explain how temperatures in the 800-1000 Kelvin range were created in the debris pile 5 days after the attack as measured by NASA satellites.


You demand accountability for my statements over and over again (which I have been providing) yet repeatedly gloss over and just ignore anything that does not confirm your own bias. Convenient you do not have to provide any evidence in response to these points. In your mind denial is evidence enough.

If evidence had indicated insurance fraud the insurance companies would have been seriously looking for it, and it's reasonable to think they would have found it.   The number of people that would have been involved and the huge amount of money the insurance companies would have paid to get one of them to sing.

Yes, they would be looking for a bullet in the head for themselves and their whole family as well.

You are thinking of a word, "resistance."   But you don't know whether that is 0.001% reduction in the speed of a building's fall or 20%.

Note Tecshare brought in what he thought was a valid point to refute the tower easily collapsing, that it was built to withstand 20x static load.  I simply showed that it experienced in excess of 120x load at the initial failure.  So his own logic REQUIRES THE BUILDING TO FAIL WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES.  And the same happens as soon as I plug in numbers into "resistance."  Your argument becomes an argument against your own position, dude.   Your problem, not mine.

But hey, go scurry off and watch a Michael Moore film on how the Evil Bush did it.  Then slither back all charged up and tell us about those Evil Jews.

Oh really? Too bad that 2000% over engineered metric was for JUST THE OUTER COLUMNS. The outer columns only supported about 40% of the total load. All you are capable of doing is twisting words any lying since you haven't a leg to stand on. Again, no matter how much weight the building could withstand, it still doesn't explain how your explanation VIOLATED NEWTONS 3RD LAW OF MOTION by having 12 floors destroy 98 floors without itself being destroyed. Your strategy is much like that of a customer service employee, waste their time until they are tired of having their time wasted and hang up. P.S. Michael Moore is a worthless sack of shit.

....

I noticed you are using an old numbered list to attempt to create even more confusion.....

If these questions are not settled, it isn't okay for you to just move on.  And they're not.  Don't worry, all of your ten questions can be easily debunked.

Now, what about that rather laughable "free fall speed?"  Let's hear where and how exactly you get to that conclusion?   Because it sure isn't obvious from the seismic record.  That shows relatively low levels for ten seconds, then fifteen seconds of heavy impacts.  Maybe you think stuff from the top of the building show impact first, then last of all stuff from the bottom?  

Come on, let's hear the Truther view.  Because I don't see how a calculation of "free fall time" using the absolute tip of the WTC has any relation to a collapse of the whole thing from the 78th floor.

Re run a couple of those old propaganda movies like Loose Change, and get yourself an answer and present it.

First of all, its very interesting that you are criticizing me for moving on without addressing questions as you do EXACTLY THAT. Second of all, I DID NO SUCH THING. I simply rearranged the former topics, so you can stick that right where you pull your answers from.

You don't just get to declare something debunked and pretend like it has been addressed. ...

I don't declare them debunked.  The math that I present may well do that, though.

For example let's take your gem of a rebuttal.

Oh really? Too bad that 2000% over engineered metric was for JUST THE OUTER COLUMNS. The outer columns only supported about 40% of the total load.

Are you fucking kidding?  The 120x load still applies, for the perimeter to 40% of the total load, and for the central columns, for 60% of the total load.  Your argument is still defeated.  Get real please.  Evasions don't work, the entire record of the argument is in these posts.  Over and over you have simply denied a refutation of an argument.  Your own logic REQUIRES THE BUILDING TO FAIL WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES. 

And this is just prime comedy -

Now, what about that rather laughable "free fall speed?"  Let's hear where and how exactly you get to that conclusion?   Because it sure isn't obvious from the seismic record.  That shows relatively low levels for ten seconds, then fifteen seconds of heavy impacts.  Maybe you think stuff from the top of the building show impact first, then last of all stuff from the bottom?  

Come on, let's hear the Truther view.  Because I don't see how a calculation of "free fall time" using the absolute tip of the WTC has any relation to a collapse of the whole thing from the 78th floor.

[BADecker]

.....Silverstein funds could be all over the place, but simply not in his name. And, what better way for the top insurance people in those insurance companies to get the money from their companies into their personal control, than by paying Silverstein out of the company funds, and then suddenly becoming trustee of the trusts that Silverstein was formerly trustee of, a trust that owned, say, a few million in property here and there. And each of the other insurance guys did the same.

I mean, this is all speculation....

Bah.  Yah, you are using "speculation" to malign individuals and assert they are responsible for 3000 murders.  Because, yeah.  The "Evil Jew" theory of causation.  "Must be a Jew, so must be evil, so must be the cause of the 911 atrocity."  Only a true cunt would dream of saying such a thing.

Wow! First you speculate that some Arab Terrorists did it. Now you are speculating that it was the Jews. What's next? Are you going to say that some 8th graders did it, just so that your silly idea of 8th grade math, chemistry and physics can fit in somewhere?

Thanks again for helping to prove that 9/11 was an inside job.

[Spendulus]

Silverstein and others wanted to take the Towers down. Why? Because the city was condemning them for the asbestos problem. The cost would have been enormous to take them apart the same way that they went up - piece by piece - especially when they would have to be taken down in a way that would protect everyone from the asbestos. The Towers were a problem that nobody could figure a simple way around. The 9/11 deception was the cheapest way.

The planes were necessary to make it look like a terrorist attack. This way they could take the Towers down without all the care and expense, using demolition. In addition, there would be all kinds of other money deals where Silverstein and others could make money if it were a terrorist attack... like insurance deals.

Of course everybody doing the deal, including Silverstein, knew that planes couldn't take the Towers down. But many people would buy into the terrorist attack idea ( some in this forum). So, save money by using demolition and terrorism deception, and getting the job done inexpensively.

Bldg. 7 was supposedly hit by pieces of the Towers, and this is what brought it down. Many people still think this way, even though it has been shown that 7 was barely hit, and that it was emptied before being collapsed by demolition.

Here's one more time your own post.  Your words.  Your own stupid Evil Jew fantasy.  Live with it.

.....Silverstein funds could be all over the place, but simply not in his name. And, what better way for the top insurance people in those insurance companies to get the money from their companies into their personal control, than by paying Silverstein out of the company funds, and then suddenly becoming trustee of the trusts that Silverstein was formerly trustee of, a trust that owned, say, a few million in property here and there. And each of the other insurance guys did the same.

I mean, this is all speculation....

Bah.  Yah, you are using "speculation" to malign individuals and assert they are responsible for 3000 murders.  Because, yeah.  The "Evil Jew" theory of causation.  "Must be a Jew, so must be evil, so must be the cause of the 911 atrocity."  Only a true cunt would dream of saying such a thing.

Wow! First you speculate that some Arab Terrorists did it. Now you are speculating that it was the Jews. What's next? Are you going to say that some 8th graders did it....

Deny, deny, deny.  Fantasies in your fantasy world.  Evidence of your delusions is bolded.  Now slither back to some 911 Truther movies.  Try the ones with the long, dirge like music themes.

[Spendulus]

.....Silverstein funds could be all over the place, but simply not in his name. And, what better way for the top insurance people in those insurance companies to get the money from their companies into their personal control, than by paying Silverstein out of the company funds, and then suddenly becoming trustee of the trusts that Silverstein was formerly trustee of, a trust that owned, say, a few million in property here and there. And each of the other insurance guys did the same.

I mean, this is all speculation....

Bah.  Yah, you are using "speculation" to malign individuals and assert they are responsible for 3000 murders.  Because, yeah.  The "Evil Jew" theory of causation.  "Must be a Jew, so must be evil, so must be the cause of the 911 atrocity."  Only a true cunt would dream of saying such a thing.

All the Jews in my life are really, absurdly good people that I'm lucky to have, FWIW

I have to agree with that, and it even includes one or two that actually believe in or care about their religion, which most don't.

[BADecker]

.....Silverstein funds could be all over the place, but simply not in his name. And, what better way for the top insurance people in those insurance companies to get the money from their companies into their personal control, than by paying Silverstein out of the company funds, and then suddenly becoming trustee of the trusts that Silverstein was formerly trustee of, a trust that owned, say, a few million in property here and there. And each of the other insurance guys did the same.

I mean, this is all speculation....

Bah.  Yah, you are using "speculation" to malign individuals and assert they are responsible for 3000 murders.  Because, yeah.  The "Evil Jew" theory of causation.  "Must be a Jew, so must be evil, so must be the cause of the 911 atrocity."  Only a true cunt would dream of saying such a thing.

All the Jews in my life are really, absurdly good people that I'm lucky to have, FWIW

I have to agree with that, and it even includes one or two that actually believe in or care about their religion, which most don't.

I, also, agree with that. No matter the race or creed, there are good people in any national group. But there are a few bad people, as well.

The point is, 9/11 was an inside job. Did some bad Arabs take part in it? Did some bad Israelites take part in it? Perhaps. But mostly it was some bad Americans.

At the base and core of the official story of the demolishing of the Twin Towers are two things. Two things supposedly contributed everything to the Towers coming down:
1. The plane crashes weakened the structural integrity;
2. The burning fuel from the planes did the rest.

The reasons why these two things couldn't have done the job are:
1. The Towers were made to withstand plane crashes;
2. There wasn't near enough heat from the plane fuel to do the job, because we can see people walking around in the buildings after the crashes - even in the crash gaps.

This means that there was something else that brought the Towers down. What was it? The only thing left that we know of that could do it is demolition.

Since Silverstein was the owner of the Towers at the time, he is implicated. Since Spendy so vehemently speaks out to keep the Silverstein implication from taking a foothold, he is probably a watchdog working in part for Silverstein.

If Silverstein is a Jew, it is incidental, and has nothing to do with the Jews in general. And, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Spendy being a Jew if he is. The question is, to what extent are they Americans who are against America?

[Spendulus]

...
1. The Towers were made to withstand plane crashes;
2. There wasn't near enough heat from the plane fuel to do the job.

Neither of these assertions is true.

[BADecker]

Silverstein and others wanted to take the Towers down. Why? Because the city was condemning them for the asbestos problem. The cost would have been enormous to take them apart the same way that they went up - piece by piece - especially when they would have to be taken down in a way that would protect everyone from the asbestos. The Towers were a problem that nobody could figure a simple way around. The 9/11 deception was the cheapest way.

The planes were necessary to make it look like a terrorist attack. This way they could take the Towers down without all the care and expense, using demolition. In addition, there would be all kinds of other money deals where Silverstein and others could make money if it were a terrorist attack... like insurance deals.

Of course everybody doing the deal, including Silverstein, knew that planes couldn't take the Towers down. But many people would buy into the terrorist attack idea ( some in this forum). So, save money by using demolition and terrorism deception, and getting the job done inexpensively.

Bldg. 7 was supposedly hit by pieces of the Towers, and this is what brought it down. Many people still think this way, even though it has been shown that 7 was barely hit, and that it was emptied before being collapsed by demolition.

Here's one more time your own post.  Your words.  Your own stupid Evil Jew fantasy.  Live with it.

I looked through my whole post, and I didn't find anything about evil Jews in it.

You mention the idea of evil Jews a lot with regard to 9/11. But nobody else does. What do you know that we don't know?

[BADecker]

...
1. The Towers were made to withstand plane crashes;
2. There wasn't near enough heat from the plane fuel to do the job.

Neither of these assertions is true.

Your assertion that these points are invalid is not true.

[Spendulus]

...
1. The Towers were made to withstand plane crashes;
2. There wasn't near enough heat from the plane fuel to do the job.

Neither of these assertions is true.

Your assertion that these points are invalid is not true.

It's your problem to prove that.  Certainly that is the opinion of your consensus.

A consensus of one - you.  I hope you can do better than the insurance company, which found no evidence of insurance fraud, and instead found, like we all know, that the planes caused the towers to fall.  

Your conspiracy theory is totally wacko because far simpler ones exist if there was a conspiracy.  Just have some Arab-looking terrorists running around the streets shouting "Allah Ackbar, we are going to blow towers up!  We give you three hours to get everyone out!"

Then the same pre arranged explosives go off and the towers come down.

But that's not what happened.  What happened was just one more boring, ridiculous suicidal Muslim extremist atrocity, designed to strike terror into the West (which it didn't do, of course, it just got us mad).

This "Alternate Conspiracy Theory" I mentioned doesn't require you to do all the continual lying that you have to do to maintain your belief system in a conspiracy.  Unfortunately, it isn't what you have.  So run on off and watch more crappy Youtube videos that tell you what to think.  We'll see you after a little while, Truther.

[Spendulus]

Silverstein and others wanted to take the Towers down. Why? Because the city was condemning them for the asbestos problem. The cost would have been enormous to take them apart the same way that they went up - piece by piece - especially when they would have to be taken down in a way that would protect everyone from the asbestos. The Towers were a problem that nobody could figure a simple way around. The 9/11 deception was the cheapest way.

The planes were necessary to make it look like a terrorist attack. This way they could take the Towers down without all the care and expense, using demolition. In addition, there would be all kinds of other money deals where Silverstein and others could make money if it were a terrorist attack... like insurance deals.

Of course everybody doing the deal, including Silverstein, knew that planes couldn't take the Towers down. But many people would buy into the terrorist attack idea ( some in this forum). So, save money by using demolition and terrorism deception, and getting the job done inexpensively.

Bldg. 7 was supposedly hit by pieces of the Towers, and this is what brought it down. Many people still think this way, even though it has been shown that 7 was barely hit, and that it was emptied before being collapsed by demolition.

Here's one more time your own post.  Your words.  Your own stupid Evil Jew fantasy.  Live with it.

I looked through my whole post, and I didn't find anything about evil Jews in it.

You mention the idea of evil Jews a lot with regard to 9/11. But nobody else does. What do you know that we don't know?

From Wikipedia...

Silverstein also has served as chairman of the United Jewish Appeal in New York, the Realty Foundation, trustee of the Museum of Jewish Heritage, and treasurer of the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver.

You hair brained conspiracy theory requires this man, Silverman, to be pretty darn evil.  You think he was at the center of the conspiracy.

Your problem, not mine.  Please stop the denials.