Yeah, seems to me there were all kinds of things in WTC7, not just Enron.Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius
Lack Of Air Defense Response
Building 7 Collapse
Pentagon Hole
Bush's Response
Insider Trading
FBI And CIA Coverups
Demolition-Like Collapse Of WTC 1 & 2
Gut Intuition
All Of The Above
Whatever Is Most Comfortable For You
Yeah, seems to me there were all kinds of things in WTC7, not just Enron.
Most people freak-the-fuck-out when I start talking about 911. They can't stand to think critically about their beliefs. In fact, I was recently kicked off of a board because of the information I was posting there. They called me, amongst other things, insane. It was a surfing board, no doubt. One might have illusions about surfing being some sort of subculture, at best a counterculture. No way. It is as dominated by right-wingers and nationalists as golf or tennis. At least that is what I have decided.
But nobody could really foist a working argument about why wtc 7 fell, at free fall speed, neatly into its own footprint. The Omission Report, oops I mean Commission Report, avoids any discussion of wtc 7. It is definitely a good entry point for a skeptic wanting to approach 911 critically and to get immediate rewards for their skepticism. The Pentagon, I believe is also a good entry point.
Having said that I would like to point something out. In Plato's cave, what would happen to informed folks who entered the cave and started spouting about the truths about the cave and what was going on outside the cave?
According to Plato, they were ripped apart. RIPPED TO PIECES.
People want to stay in the cave. They like the cave. It is comfortable. The smoke and shadows and reflections are created to, amongst other things, make them feel good about themselves. To talk about the reality of the cave is to make people wonder if they shouldn't really feel so good about themselves. To consider that they have made a huge mistake about what they have concluded about reality.
And according to Plato, they would rather rip a truth-bearer to shreds than accept reality.
A while back I wanted to rewatch the Pentagon Strike video so I simply typed it up on Yahoo. And interstingly enough, one of the sites which shows it said they had to take it down because there were too many complaits about the content.
The Pentagon strike was the door through which I exited the cave.
The official account of the Pentagon strike is incredibly difficult to defend. Thus I recommend using it as fodder for a discussion by which one hopes to prod someone else into becoming skeptical of the legitimacy of the official account.
POINTS TO MAKE OVER A COLD BEER:
Real big plane (140+ ft wing span, 47 feet from tip of tail to ground), itty bitty hole (16' by 16).
No wreckage. Official account: the wings, instead of shearing off and bouncing back onto the lawn to be seen later by camera-toting reporters were sucked into the tiny hole as if it were the mouth of some sort of vacuum.
preexisting pentagon strike exercises envolving planes
virtually impossible descending maneuver by an idiot who couldn't handle a single-prop plane. Expert testimony reveals that 90 percent of pro pilots couldn't have pulled off what Hanjour did that day. Many say it is impossible for a Boeing 757 to make that kind of loop-de-loop at all w/o breaking apart or falling out of the sky. Meanwhile FAA radar dudes say, in day-of reports, that, based on the flight pattern and maneuvers, at the time they thought they were watching a military plane, not a boeing passenger jumbo jet, closing in on the bldg.
destruction consistent with that done by a cruise missile or a kamikazzee hit by a military jet
rescue personel strangely on hand on the day of
strike was on the "weak side" of the building, with Rumsfield, rummyrumrum, the stand up comedian, safe on the other side of the building at the time of impact
Engine parts found on site consistent with those of smaller plane/missile
gov't confiscates tapes from surrounding facilities with footage of impact
day-of reports of secondary explosions (I've got a neat theory on this, if anyone is curious p.m. me)
Reporters of mainstream TV news providers on the scene argue that no plane hit the bldg in day-of reports.
official account has most of plane "vaporizing," a historical first, with black box vaporizing, virtually impossible
surviving wreckage light enough to be hauled away, by hand, under tarps, never to be seen again
first accident on American soil involving a passenger jet that the FAA didn't investigate.
Rumsfeld's freudian slip where he refers in a speech to "the missile" that hit the Pentagon
Fighter pilots who were eventually scrambled that day report, after seeing the damage from above, thinking the bldg had been hit by a missile. They should know. They've seen what a bldg hit by a missile looks like.
Govt finally releases five frames from previously mentioned confiscated footage, none show plane (or anything for that matter except for an explosion)
What am I forgetting?
Oh, and yeah, gov't goons bully witnesses, saying repeatedly that it was a plane.
"Oh no, that wasn't a missile you saw. It was a plane. A jumbo jet. Now take this check and shut the fuck up."
POINT: Anyone who wants to defend the official account has a lot of explaining to do and not much information to do it with. The Pentagon is a good starting point, no doubt. I still voted wtc 7.
Insider trading is another good point.
But not as good as wtc 7.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote