First the federal government flew planes into the WTC, then they blew them up using explosives.
Then they turned a crank, which rotated a vertical gear, connected to a horizontal gear. As that gear turned, it pushed an elastic-loaded lever until it snapped back in place, hitting a swinging boot. The boot kicked over a bucket, sending a marble down a zig-zagging incline which fed into a chute. This led the marble to hit a vertical pole, at the top of which was an open hand, palm-up, which supported a larger ball. The movement of the pole knocked the ball free to fall through a hole in its platform into a bathtub, and then through a hole in the tub onto one end of a seesaw. This catapulted a diver on the other end into a tub which was on the same base as the barbed pole supporting a cage. The movement of the tub shook the cage free from the top of the pole and allowed it to fall and trap the mouse.
Riker… that is the stupidest thing i have ever heard… no way would it catch the mouse!!! he was a mossad plant, operating under the cover of rentokil with over sight by the Carlyle group.
its so obvious…when you think about it::smack:
Have you read the book in the Amazon link above? Probably just like yourself, I don’t independently investigate every aspect of everything I read; I tend to rely on my judgement of the motivations of the authors. And I doubt David Ray Griffin is in it merely for the money, or the notoriety.
And yet here you are again, 8 years on. Kinda perverse, dont you think? Or are you just as commited to spreading, or reiterating your version of events as the average “twoofer”?
Its laughable. Completely and utterly laughable. The ignorance of what it takes to wire a building for demolition is stunning. Whoever wrote this watched the ‘X-Files’ movie and thinks a tower can be brought down with a soda machine full of explosives. What a joke.
Why do you doubt that? Griffin has had plenty of opportunity to learn the reality of engineering and physics but instead chooses to write and publish the same book over and over. How many books on 911 is he up to now?
[/QUOTE]
You might want to look at the title of this webpage again. See the part about ‘Fighting Ignorance’? Think about that for a moment, OK?
Ryan Mackey may be a smart man, but there are smart men who’ll swear blind their views on religion are conclusive. If Mackey has done all the research necessary to refute Griffin’s opinions and facts, why does he still feel the need to entertain these “crackpots”? One could say he was just as obsessed about the topic as the most fervent “twoofer”.
(And I bet he’s desperately hoping someone will buy his book, when it’s finished!)
Only to someone who is willing to ignore physics, engineering, and logic. If that sounds plausible to you then there’s really no point trying to discuss this. Regardless of what sounds plausible to you there is no chance, none, zip, nada, that this could have occurred.
He produces a few papers countering the lies and somehow he’s obsessed? There’s a logic disconnect in your reasoning somewhere. This is a big fat tu quoque argument by someone desperate to cling to his delusion. Spare us.
Do you know he’s producing a book? Please support this claim.
Am I crazy, or when you watch the twin towers collapse, don’t they each fail at the exact spot where the planes hit them and the fires are raging? Then, as the part above the impact zones crash down, they go past that point and just keeps going straight down? I mean, we’ve all seen it with our own eyes, multiple times. How in any way is does this look the same as controlled demos, where the whole building just gives way all at once? And what would ever make them suddenly topple one way or the other? Doesn’t everything that falls basically go straight down unless there’s some other force in play besides gravity? And wouldn’t that have to be an awfully strong force? I mean, the pleasant summer breeze that day wouldn’t have done it.
Also, how much can we figure those top 20-30 floors weigh, and what would happen if we removed 10 floors from the buildings and then dropped that much weight on it, even without the fires? From what I understand about the way they were designed, they lost most of their upright integrity when they lost those floors, because the floors kept the corner supports square to each other. When the weight came down, the building twisted slightly and that was that.
We know they were calling in fighter jets on the morning of 9/11 and we knew there was a strong possibility that they may have to shoot down one of the planes before it reached an intended target. If they did just that and the government wants to cover it up, why didn’t they keep the fighter jet thing secret in the first place? Why would they admit that something was a definitely possibility and then when it becomes a reality, deny it? That doesn’t make sense. And was it really just amazing timing that said fighter jet just happened to shoot them down within seconds of the passengers breeching the pilot’s cabin?
If there were bombs in the basements of the WTC, why didn’t we hear explosive charges going off (which, I imagine, would sound deafening anywhere nearby) in the documentary shot by the French brothers where one was actually IN the basement of tower 2 when it collapsed? All you hear in that movie is a slow rumble of things falling and collapsing before everything starts to go black.
Nope, not surprising at all. They had already witnessed two buildings collapse because of structural damage followed by raging fires. It’s easy to put two and two together and predict that the third building was also going to collapse.
And outside, the cameramen that where close to the collapse pointed their cameras up when the collapse took place, if explosions did take place in the basement I would expect that news people would point the cameras down to the source of the noise.
Instead the source of the noise was up, and coming down on everyone.