Marvin Bush Mystery?
I've commented before on the idiocy of the 9-11 "Truth" movement's focus on Marvin Bush, who supposedly provided security for the World Trade Center. In fact, Marvin was apparently on the board of directors of the company that provided security for the World Trade Center, from 1993 until fiscal 2000.
Some of the ditzier folks out there even claim that Securacom had a two-year contract with the World Trade Center that expired on September 10, 2001. This claim is repeated in the Wikipedia page on Marvin Bush.
He was a director of the Sterling, Virginia company Securacom, also known as Stratesec, from 1993 until fiscal year 2000. The Securacom/Stratesec company was publicly traded and backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corporation. Marvin Bush and Securacom/Stratesec were in charge of security at the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport, and United Airlines during a two year contract which was set to end on September 10th, 2001, only a day before the 9/11 attacks. [1]
The footnote refers to "Barbara Bush's Memoirs".
But when we visit the Wikipedia 9-11 Conspiracies page, we're told:
According to its president CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down". This last statement has been used by some conspiracy theorists to say that the contract "expired" on September 11, 2001. Barbara Bush confirmed this theory in her book 'Reflections' also stating 9/11 was the day the contract expired.
Barbara Bush has written both a "Memoir" book and a "Reflections" book. Since "A Memoir" was issued in September of 1994 and Reflections in October 2003, it's not hard to see that it must be the latter book.
Okay, I checked the book out of the library this morning. The book is organized by year, running from 1993-2000. There is an epilogue to the book for September 2001. The only mention of Marvin Bush in that chapter is the story about him being in the subway under Wall Street that day and having to walk back to his hotel. I searched in the book on Amazon for "contract". No mention. There's also no mention of "expired". Looking up "security" comes up with 19 pages cited, but none of them seem to relate to the security firm at the World Trade Center.
So I suspect that both the Wikipedia citations on this are bunk.
Commenter NESNYC points to this article which supposedly proves me wrong. In fact, it confirms that Marvin left the company in question prior to the end of 2000:
Marvin Bush was reelected to the Stratesec board of directors annually from 1993 through 1999. His last reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000.
It does not mention the contract terminating on September 10, 2001.
So this proves me wrong how, NESNYC?
posted by Pat @ 11:58 AM
21 comments
21 Comments:
Good. Now let's go in depth.
Face it guys, you're being proved wrong at every juncture, give it up.
nesync, where in that linked article does it mention any contract that was terminated on 9/10/01?
Where does it suggest anything but that Bush's last election to the Stratesec board was for a term that ended in June 2000?
But more importantly, please explain what it would mean if it had. Make an accusation. Connect the dots. Propose a theory.
Such as: Marvin Bush had forewarning of the 9/11 plan, and as such he had his company—several years before the fact—establish the term of the security contract to expire on that very day, because lord knows they wouldn't want to have to charge for one more day's worth of security service than they knew they'd be needed for.
Or: Stratesec, a failing security firm with an ongoing WTC contract, was being pumped full of money by the Kuwaitis, because the Kuwaitis sure wanted to keep that company afloat so they could direct them to cover up the installation of demolition charges so as to participate in a frame-up that would get their eternal enemies—uh, Afghanistan—attacked.
How am I doing with these?
Look: it's just so ridiculous investing so much time and emotional energy into a conspiracy theory that doesn't even propose a coherent thesis. If you believe the "inconsistencies" that Loose Change describes add up to a story that's any more plausible than the one that's officially agreed upon, by all means, propose it already. Be detailed. Explain it. Include actors, means, and motives, like in any good criminal investigation. Make an airtight case. Make ANY case. Explain, for example, how it makes sense to have planes carry bomb pods into the WTC—and fire them before hitting. Explain why it's important for the buildings to have collapsed, when it was clear to everybody in the country that we were at war even before the towers fell. Explain the process by which the passengers were carefully offloaded from flights 93 and 77, and why it was necessary to do so even when the plot called for the murder of unpredictable thousands of people in the buildings and on the ground and billions of dollars in property damage and economic ruin. Explain how the collapse of WTC 7 is suspicious or indicates a key part of the plot—including careful reasoning to describe why an intricate CIA plot to make it look like the Twin Towers were brought down by direct plane collisions would take the fundamental and inexplicable extra step of destroying an unrelated building that wasn't directly hit. Was it that important that WTC 7 be destroyed? Was it worth killing thousands of Americans so as to provide a pretext to destroy that one building that, as the day worked out, turned out to be ultra-suspicious in its timing and circumstances? What kind of plot was this? I mean, come on—let's have a theory that ties all these things together. Let's hear how plausible it is that so many elements of the plot that hinged on fantastically intricate maneuvers and details of timing went off so spectacularly without a hitch as to not even arouse suspicion, and yet for other far more fundamental elements like WTC 7 to have been bungled so badly as to stand out in any conspiracy report, and for companies like Stratesec to go out of business after 9/11 and for G.W. Bush not to even bother trying to link 9/11 to Iraq in the run-up to that war. If that was the purpose of the whole exercise, you'd think he'd have done so, wouldn't you?
Or isn't it just possible that it's more plausible that nineteen al-Qaeda-trained hijackers boarded planes at various airports, took the controls as simultaneously as they could (which turns out not to have been very simultaneously at all, thanks to airline delays and the like), and succeeded in driving them into their primary and secondary targets which then collapsed or didn't according to the respective buildings' geometries, and that U93 was driven into the ground by rebelling passengers who were able through an accident of timing to find out what was in store for them?
It's amazing how few people have to be involved and how few intricate maneuvers have to be executed perfectly according to plan for the latter theory to make sense. It's amazing how many such people and maneuvers have to be involved in any other theory. And if anyone can propose one that is by those standards in any way more plausible, they ought to make their own version of Loose Change and use the evidence to support that theory rather than to just throw all the evidence at you and insinuate that the covered-up conclusion is so obvious and so well-established that they don't need to bother explaining it.
Look at the history, that entry, on a relatively obscure subject, has been edited over 500 times. It appears conspiracy theorists keep on changing it to fit their views. One of the problems with Wikipedia, which I am a big fan of overall.
This blog is for defending corruption.
If you post any real info on this blog they will just delete your post. They really only encourage weak info. Anything that they can't debunk gets deleted. Dont waste your time here.
just wasting some time: WTC7... umm... how if United 93 was supposesd to crash into this building?
About human life: look at what the U.S government have been doing to humans in other parts of the world. Do you really think they care about american lives?
The whole country knew you were at war immediately? I thought they were all going "Uh, Why do someone, like, hate us?!"
Have you been looking at Loose Change too hard?
Brian Tiemann: just to let you know that (IMO) you've pointed out the fundamental error, or failure of all conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.
Most people lose themselves in all kinds of technical discussions, but to me the real issue is: a plausible and coherent these about the events on 9/11.
And then, just like Brian tiemann, I'd like to the hear the first detailed these about the events in some sort of "conspiracy" style.
I mean, it's easy to focus on some of the - at first sight - strange things about the 9/11 events, and try to find some - at first sight? - unanswered questions.
But, as long as you don't or can't describe a fully detailed, coherent these that covers up the events in a better way, you shouldn't be screaming to loud.
As far as I can see, all the conspiracy theories are just a bunge of very incoherent, unlikely theories tied around some "loose ends".
Take for example the theory of the investor making money out of the WTC events... Was he the man behind the whole 9/11 thing... Very unlikely; why would he have any interest in bombing(?) the pentagon.
Now, if he wasn't the man behind the 9/11 events, what was his role in the events: did someone (some guy of "the government")just contact him, telling he was going to bomb the buildings, and that he could make a fair deal of money out of it... Or did he "know the people behind 9/11".
Who are these people then? The government? Now seriously, do you really think there is something as " the government", consisting of several hundreds of peoples who all think: well, it's OK to bomb the twin towers, and kill several thousands of people (doesn't anyone of them has relatives working there? Or did they inform their relatives - but this means there were even more everyday people, who you can't suspect to have any benefit out of the whole thing, who knew all about it, without anyone of them saying "now wait a minute, this is immoral and wrong, I'm going to bring this all out". Or why didn't those relatives inform their colleagues at the twi towers? NOTE: this issue about relatives counts for every other part of the 9/11 events, as I'll state later on)
Or do you think there are just a few people behind it? But, do you really think thay can find several hundred people to set up a controlled demolition of the twin towers - without anyone even noticing the tiniest thing (and don't come telling there was a suspicious training some days before the breakdown; to set up a controlled demolition of such a building you need well trained people, and a lot of time - where did they find skilled people who think it is OK to destroy the WTC towers with thousands of people in? Who recruited these people; why didn't anyone refuse, and go to the press with a huge story). If you tell it was all done by CIA agents the question is: why would those take part of such a horrifying action? Wasn't there any of the agents who had some family working in the twin towers?
You see, it's those kind of questions (but to a far greater extent if you take in account every event of 9/11) that the believers of the conspiracy should try to answer when they set up a full, coherent alternative theory about the 9/11 events.
But they don't such a thing... and that way, for people who don't try to do the logical reasoning to tie the several - often totally unrelated theories - they launch, they seem to have a case...
Their case only lives by grace of vagueness, and the implicit distrust of "the government". (NOTE: I'm from Belgium, in Europe, and here the conspiracy theory is very popular amongst people who dislike the US' role in the world in general, or Bush...).
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Brian Tiemann: just to let you know that (IMO) you've pointed out the fundamental error, or failure of all conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.
Most people lose themselves in all kinds of technical discussions, but to me the real issue is: a plausible and coherent these about the events on 9/11.
And then, just like Brian tiemann, I'd like to the hear the first detailed these about the events in some sort of "conspiracy" style.
I mean, it's easy to focus on some of the - at first sight - strange things about the 9/11 events, and try to find some - at first sight? - unanswered questions.
But, as long as you don't or can't describe a fully detailed, coherent these that covers up the events in a better way, you shouldn't be screaming to loud.
As far as I can see, all the conspiracy theories are just a bunge of very incoherent, unlikely theories tied around some "loose ends".
Take for example the theory of the investor making money out of the WTC events... Was he the man behind the whole 9/11 thing... Very unlikely; why would he have any interest in bombing(?) the pentagon.
Now, if he wasn't the man behind the 9/11 events, what was his role in the events: did someone (some guy of "the government")just contact him, telling he was going to bomb the buildings, and that he could make a fair deal of money out of it... Or did he "know the people behind 9/11".
Who are these people then? The government? Now seriously, do you really think there is something as " the government", consisting of several hundreds of peoples who all think: well, it's OK to bomb the twin towers, and kill several thousands of people (doesn't anyone of them has relatives working there? Or did they inform their relatives - but this means there were even more everyday people, who you can't suspect to have any benefit out of the whole thing, who knew all about it, without anyone of them saying "now wait a minute, this is immoral and wrong, I'm going to bring this all out". Or why didn't those relatives inform their colleagues at the twi towers? NOTE: this issue about relatives counts for every other part of the 9/11 events, as I'll state later on)
Or do you think there are just a few people behind it? But, do you really think thay can find several hundred people to set up a controlled demolition of the twin towers - without anyone even noticing the tiniest thing (and don't come telling there was a suspicious training some days before the breakdown; to set up a controlled demolition of such a building you need well trained people, and a lot of time - where did they find skilled people who think it is OK to destroy the WTC towers with thousands of people in? Who recruited these people; why didn't anyone refuse, and go to the press with a huge story). If you tell it was all done by CIA agents the question is: why would those take part of such a horrifying action? Wasn't there any of the agents who had some family working in the twin towers?
You see, it's those kind of questions (but to a far greater extent if you take in account every event of 9/11) that the believers of the conspiracy should try to answer when they set up a full, coherent alternative theory about the 9/11 events.
But they don't such a thing... and that way, for people who don't try to do the logical reasoning to tie the several - often totally unrelated theories - they launch, they seem to have a case...
Their case only lives by grace of vagueness, and the implicit distrust of "the government". (NOTE: I'm from Belgium, in Europe, and here the conspiracy theory is very popular amongst people who dislike the US' role in the world in general, or Bush...).
Brian Tiemann: just to let you know that (IMO) you've pointed out the fundamental error, or failure of all conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.
Most people lose themselves in all kinds of technical discussions, but to me the real issue is: a plausible and coherent these about the events on 9/11.
And then, just like Brian tiemann, I'd like to the hear the first detailed these about the events in some sort of "conspiracy style".
I mean, it's easy to focus on some of the - at first sight - strange things about the 9/11 events, and try to find some - at first sight? - unanswered questions.
But, as long as you don't or can't describe a fully detailed, coherent these that covers up the events in a better way, you shouldn't be screaming to loud.
As far as I can see, all the conspiracy theories are just a bunge of very incoherent, unlikely theories tied around some "loose ends".
Take for example the theory of the investor making money out of the WTC events... Was he the man behind the whole 9/11 thing... Very unlikely; why would he have any interest in bombing(?) the pentagon.
Now, if he wasn't the man behind the 9/11 events, what was his role in the events: did someone (some guy of "the government")just contact him, telling he was going to bomb the buildings, and that he could make a fair deal of money out of it... Or did he "know the people behind 9/11".
Who are these people then? The government? Now seriously, do you really think there is something as " the government", consisting of several hundreds of peoples who all think: well, it's OK to bomb the twin towers, and kill several thousands of people (doesn't anyone of them has relatives working there? Or did they inform their relatives - which means there were even more everyday people, who you can't suspect to get any direct benefit out of the whole operation, who knew all about it, without anyone of them thinking "now wait a minute, this is immoral and wrong, I'm going to bring this all out". And, if some people in the twin towers were informed, why didn't those relatives inform their colleagues?)
Or do you think there are just a few people behind the conspiracy? But, do you really think they would be able to find several hundred people to set up the controlled demolition of the twin towers - without anyone even noticing the tiniest thing (and don't come telling there was a suspicious training at the towers some days before the breakdown; to set up a controlled demolition of such a building you need a lot of equipment, well trained people, and quite a lot of time. And, moreover where did they find skilled people who think it is OK to destroy the WTC towers with thousands of people in them? Who recruited these people; why didn't anyone refuse, and go to the press with a huge story. If you tell it was all done by CIA agents the question remains: why would those take part in such a horrifying action, what's their benefit? Wasn't there any of the agents who had some family working in the twin towers, who refused, and wanted to bring the whole thing out...)
You see, it's those kind of questions (but a lot more if you take in account every event of 9/11) that the believers of the conspiracy should try to answer when they set up a full, coherent alternative theory about the 9/11 events.
But they don't... and that way, for people who don't try to do the logical reasoning that is needed to tie the several - often totally unrelated - theories they launch themselves, they seem to have a case...
So, in fact their case only lives by grace of the vagueness, and the implicit distrust of "the government". (NOTE: I'm from Belgium, in Europe, and here the conspiracy theory is very popular amongst people who dislike the US' role in the world in general, or Bush... so basically people who distrust the US govenrment too).
In a way it's sad to see people scrutinizing the official version to the tiniest detail, but never investigating the alternative with the same scrutiny...
In a way it makes me think of the people who attack the evolution theory because of some "missing links", and then use these "unanswaered questions" as an evidence for the creationist theory...
Brian Tiemann: just to let you know that (IMO) you've pointed out the fundamental error in, or failure of all conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.
Most people lose themselves in all kinds of technical discussions, but to me the real issue is: a plausible and coherent these about the events on 9/11.
And then, just like Brian Tiemann, I'd like to the hear the first detailed these about the events in some sort of "conspiracy style".
I mean, it's easy to focus on some of the - at first sight - strange things about the 9/11 events, and try to find some - at first sight? - unanswered questions.
But, as long as you don't or can't describe a fully detailed, coherent these that covers up aal events in a better way, you shouldn't be to proud of your case...
As far as I can see, all the conspiracy theories are just a bunge of very incoherent, unlikely theories tied around some "loose ends".
Take for example the theory of the investor making money out of the WTC events... Was he the man behind the whole 9/11 thing... Very unlikely; why would he have any interest in bombing(?) the Pentagon.
Now, if he wasn't the man behind the 9/11 events, what was his role in the events: did someone (some guy of "the government")just contact him, telling he was going to bomb the buildings, and that he could make a fair deal of money out of it... Or did he just "know the people behind 9/11".
Who then are these people? The government? Now seriously, do you really think there is such a thing as " the government", consisting of several (hundreds of) people who all think: well, it's OK to bomb the twin towers, and kill several thousands of people (doesn't anyone of them has relatives working there? Or did they inform their relatives - which means there were even more people, in this case everyday people who you can't suspect to get any direct benefit out of the whole operation, who knew all about it, but without anyone of them thinking "now wait a minute, this is immoral and wrong, I'm going to bring this all out". And, if indeed some people in the twin towers were informed, why didn't those relatives inform their colleagues?)
Or do you think there are just a few people behind the conspiracy? But, do you really think they would be able to find several hundred people to set up the controlled demolition of the twin towers - without anyone even noticing the tiniest thing (and don't come telling there was a suspicious training at the towers some days before the breakdown; to set up a controlled demolition of such a building you need a lot of equipment, well trained people, and quite a lot of time. And, moreover, it might not be difficult to find skilled people, but you have to find skilled people who think it is OK to destroy the WTC towers with thousands of people in them? Who recruited these people; why didn't anyone refuse, and go to the press with the whole story. If you tell it was all done by CIA agents the question remains: why would those agents take part in such a horrifying action, what's their benefit? Wasn't there not a single one of the agents who had some family working in the twin towers, who refused, and wanted to bring the whole thing out...)
You see, it's those kind of questions (but a lot more if you take in account every event of 9/11) that the believers of the conspiracy should try to answer when they set up a full, coherent alternative theory about the 9/11 events.
But they don't... and that way, for people who don't try to do the logical reasoning that is needed to tie the several - often totally unrelated - theories themselves, the conspiracy theorists seem to have a case...
So, IMO their case only lives by grace of the unbelievable vagueness, and the implicit distrust of "the government" that a lot people seem to have. (NOTE: I'm from Belgium, in Europe, and here the conspiracy theory is quite popular amongst people who dislike the US' role in the world in general, or Bush policy... so basically people who distrust the US govenrment too).
In a way it's sad to see people scrutinizing the official version to the tiniest detail, but never investigating the alternative with the same scrutiny...
In a way it makes me think of the people who attack the evolution theory because of some "missing links", and then use these "unanswered questions" as an evidence for the creationist theory...
I do not believe that political preferences should have any bearing on how factual evidence about 9/11 is interpreted. The report put forth by the 9/11 commission and popular media has gaps in it large enough to fit a 757. After listening to the arguments made in Popular Mechanic's Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 cover story, I am further convinced that their position is tenuous at best. While there's false information on both sides of this debate, I've found that the majority of scientific evidence does not support the official version. It's easier to discredit all who dispute the government's account by singling out the theories that are not based in fact rather than considering each individual piece of evidence based on its own merit.
Is it not true that in theory a debate is supposed to be a battle of wits between opposing sides trying to prove their case as well discredit their competition? Is it not also true that those with greater intellect and factual evidence will be the victors the majority of the time? In theory when only these factors are examined in isolation this would hold true. However, when influenced by the subversive forces of those controlling vastly superior resources, those previously mentioned factors are rendered almost irrelevant. This is often exemplified in the discussion of political, social and environmental issues where the larger body of more persuasive factual evidence is overwhelmed by the lesser argument that receives much greater coverage from the main stream media. This inherent bias towards the version of the argument supported by those with money and power makes perfect sense when considering they are the ones who own every major media outlet and use them in ways to further their own agendas. For this reason it is naive and irresponsible to accept information from these sources at face value without considering possible alternative explanations. An educated person who is willing to examine what he or she is told beyond the surface level can gain a better understanding of what factors are truly driving an issue (99% of the time this can be achieved by following the money trail). On that same note, an uninformed, uneducated person who chooses to completely ignore or believe at face value whatever he or she is told about the world around them is yielding any power they once had to stand up for what is in their own best interest
"An educated person who is willing to examine what he or she is told beyond the surface level can gain a better understanding of what factors are truly driving an issue (99% of the time this can be achieved by following the money trail)."
This is the kind of arrogant laziness that is so typical of the "truther" movement -- if you were just as smart as me, you could look beyond the (blindingly obviously true) official explanation, because of secret, subtle forces beyond the comprehension of lesser people like you.
It is stupid, stupid, stupid logic that finding a potential discrepancy in the "official" story proves beyond dispute some wild conspiracy tale that has no proof other than the potential discrepancy.
So what if you prove some small detail of the official story has some doubt? That in no way begins to prove some huge, complicated alternative theory.
Ok Ok people lets forget about what people say is the "truth" and others say are "conspiracy theories". Just answer me one important question.Why the hell were Arabs in charge of security at any of these places especially the world trade center when we had so called been bombed by Arabs. Answer that for me. Let me put it to you this way. A group of people lets say purple people were the ones who were responsible for killing your mother or father. Would you then put those same purple people to look after your brother or sister. I couldnt put it any simpler than that without insulting peoples intelligence any further. Does this make sense to you. Putting those same people in charge. If it does then I pray for you.
You can't go in depth. Thats the reason these conspiracy theories are able to thrive. What is the actual date of the contract's expiration? There must be a piece of paper somewhere. It seems to me it would be an easy thing for Marvin Bush or Securacom to come forward and say "Looky looky here's the contract here's the expiration date let's put this to rest." I didn't even know Marvin existed and I consider myself fairly well informed. If you have to read an updated version of the memoirs of of a former President's wife who happens to be the mother of the current President to learn that he has another brother, the obvious question is, "Why?" The more curtains you hang, fences you build, and security cameras you install the more the passer-by thinks "I wonder what's going on in there?" My only theory is the easy access granted the media by the Clinton's and Kennedy's, almost to a fault, is why they were treated more favorably by the media than either Bush. Openness inspires trust.
look at what Bush and fellow globalists have done since 9/11......the John Warner Defense Act, National ID Card coming next May, police force has doubled or even tripled nationwide, a surveilled socity is the norm, forced vaccines....please stop talking about little details like Marvin Bush's career.......are u kidding me?!
we are in major trouble. these people do belong to secret socities...Bush and Kerry were in Skull and Bones......that is just the tip. they are obsessed with death, sacrifice (war), and control over us worker bees.
because China is replacing much of the American workforce through cheap slave labor, we will be discarded like trash. America is in trouble.
this has been planned for many years and these people have been controlling us for centuries. they have infiltrated every major force of influence using such things as this site.
conspiracy is not a bad word. it is our way out. these are evil international satanic worshipping bastards that are finally facing JUSTICE.
I hate it when people believe things without true objective thinking. I dont think Loose Change has a solid case. I do however think there are some very suspicious things surrounding the event of 9-11. I am not talking about Bush's security company either.
1.) The size of the hole in the Pentagon too small. Are we to believe the Pentagon does not have footage at every angle of the premises? Are we to believe the video available for security is shot at a slow 1 frame per second. Why cant we see the CITGO and Sheraton footage?
2.) The wrong aircraft parts pictured in News Footage of the Pentagon crash site?
3.) Did the jet engines from 77 vaporize outside the building defying physics or did they get sucked into that 15-20 ft hole in the building between the windows?
4.) Tell me honestly. When you watched the planes fly into the towers that morning and later see them implode - did you not think at first that not only did terrorists fly into the buildings, they also bombed them? That is what we all thought until gov. told us weakened steel caused the implosions. Do you not regard it as highly suspicious that WT7 was the 3rd building in history to collapse from fire? Have you watched the video of this building falling? Have you looked into the NISTC explanation verses what you can see in that video?
5.) The large number of FBI identified terrorists on those flights that have since turned up alive.
Screw Loose Change, you couldn't investigate all the data in a lifetime. It is not complete. It caters to people who want to believe in any conspiracy presented. However, you would have to be a complete idiot to think the story fed out of DC's own conspiracy theory makes any more sense.
I agree. Lets not waste time talking about details that can be read any way you like. Lets look at what is real here.
I agree Loose Change has too many loose ends. Also, Marvin's security company is too far from being hard evidence so quit with the peripheries.
Please de-bunk this though,
1. The size of the hole in the Pentagon. 15-20ft
2. The wrong aircraft parts at the Pentagon crash site.
3. Sesimic records of the WTC collapses.
4. NISTC's refusal to consider explosives as a hypothesis when 3 bldgs imploded in perfect form for the first time in history from fire.
5. WT7 not hit by plane but implodes perfectly with debris barely reaching sidewalk across the street, falls from fire.
This is America people. Thank goodness we are able to openly question our government. I will be happy if anyone can lay these 5 points above at rest. Good luck.
Look, if any of you so-called debunkers possessed even rudimentary knowledge of engineering, you would understand that a steel structure building cannot collapse like a sandcastle without the aid of explosives. Without explosives and cutter charges, the wreckage would have consisted of large, intact pieces of steel framing. The amount of force necessary to obliterate a steel structure is not even fractionally present in the weight of the tower above the point of impact and "pile-driver" force could never produce the "pulverizing-effect" that we say at the WTCs. You're fools to argue against controlled demolition because controlled demolition has been incontrovertibly proven around the world by engineers and architects. It's suicide to defend another position, so wake up and look at what the professionals WHO HAVE ACTUALLY ANALYZED the evidence are saying. Just look at the photograph and do your own experiment at home! Only wood and brick buildings can "shatter" like the WTC did without explosives. THINK before you defend your FEAR that there is something much more horrible behind 9-11. It was executed by a team of demolition experts. Why does that scare you? Why not embrace the truth and investigate it? Anything else is suicide! Seriously. I'm not an "illuminati" conspiracy theorist, in fact I have no idea WHO did this, but facts are facts and should not be kept from the public forum. Let's act together, reasonably. Address the core issue here, but PLEASE stop muddying the waters with all this so-called "de-bunking". You're only succeeding at keeping those who are uninformed in the dark. But those of us who know the truth only wince at the destructive effects of defending such a lie as the Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory. Don't any of you know what a black-op is? Are you really so naive as to believe that 'loudest' means 'right', as in the case of the Corporate Media. Well, I won't argue, because it is written in Psalm 1 "Blessed is he who stands not in the way of sinners nor sits in the seat of mockers.." I'm no Bible waiver, just a simple man who believes in God and works hard to make a living in a crazy world. But you guys seems like you really need to do some soul-searching and figure out whether you're making all these distortions out of LOVE or HATRED, because you all seem to be haters to me.. Here is my last contribution, again from the Bible (good book!): "He who leadeth into captivity goeth into captivity". Think about that the next time you feel compelled to convince yourselves that 9-11 was done by Muslims. Good luck.
As usual, the Troofers come along years later and post on dead threads so that it appears that their garbage went unchallenged.
WTC7 not hit by a plane yet NIST admits freefall collapse. Violates law of conservation of energy, simple as that.
I've had a hard time finding information about Marvin Bush and security. Have you found anything since you wrote this? BTW, I'm NOT a truther.
Post a Comment
<< Home