LOL, here we can see Monteroy's delusions of grandeur at work.

He's convinced himself that he has in some way set this up.

He's as batty as any riggie.

No, it would not topple.

You can't make a building like that topple for two reasons.

1) There is no significant sideways force to cause the top to move laterally.

2) The structure of the building is nowhere near strong enough to allow it to remain intact even if you could provide sufficient lateral force at the top to move it.

Lay people expect a building to topple because their experience is seeing things that are longer then they are wide toppling. But that is because the strength of such things is similar vertically and laterally which is quite different to a building and because it is much easier to move the centre of gravity of a pencil, broomstick or tree past the point of support.

Pretty sure he did...

I can't believe I'm responding to this..

If 9/11 was a conspiracy do you realize how many people would have to be involved in order to cover it up?

OK, I can see where he mentioned it.

But just referencing 9/11 a few weeks before its tenth anniversary hardly entitles anyone to claim they 'set up' one of the riggies.

OK fair enough, I want to leave it here, this is the wrong thread.

But at least admit the BBc documentary was biased in debunking the Pentagon conspiracy?

The link I provided shows that Allyn Kilsheimer was pretty much the only eye witness to say the crash site had evidence of a big passenger plane hitting it.

The BBC used his eye witness testimony as proof the conspiracy was wrong, when over 90% of the other eye witness reports say they couldn't see the plane's impact or any evidence a plane hit.

Add to this further research on kilsheimer shows he was in fact contracted to rebuild the site. He got the contract after 9/11.

I didn't watch the BBC documentary so I can't make any comment about it.

Generally, though, if I suspected that the US government were going to do something to promote a war in the middle East I would expect them to do it in a way that they could control a lot more easily than having madmen flying planes into things.

It's similar to the rigged business. (Remember that?) I'm perfectly prepared to believe that a site may act to defraud their customers (after all, it's already happened). I just find it very hard to believe that they would do so in a way that necessarily leaves the evidence of their malfeasance all over the 'net.

OK, let us assume for sake of argument you have an event.

After said event, there are 20 eye witnesses, 19 of whom say one thing, and one says another.

If you made a documentary and used that 1 eye witness against the other 19 to support your argument, would it be biased? Would it be biased to use it to support your argument and leave out the other 19 eye witnessess accounts which contradict your argument?

Yes or no.

Answer that and I'll leave it there.

I like your technique to lock in a "debate win" and I hope it works as I do have $20 bet on you (with another shill) that you will get the final opinion in the 9/11 debate, making you the first riggie I believe is a solid +EV wager in that regard. Nobody could have the last word in the online poker is rigged debate with your opponent, even you (since online poker being rigged is a casual conspiracy hobby of yours as opposed to 9/11).

Keep up the good work, I think he is about ready to quit!

I respect you a lot as a poster and your opinions.

But this is surely wrong?

The World Trade Center was the symbol of American power. To see the the tower's fall was to see America fall- it was incredibly symbolic.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._TVsymbol.html

The trade center symbolised America's power, with terrorist's attacking it brought wide spread panic and fear- I remember not long after 9/11 gangs of youths fire bombing mosques in my town centre, all because Muslims were behind 9/11. Bin Laden was being plugged on the news before the towers fell.

It changed the west's opinion of Muslims, at the time we ALL wanted revenge, as a key to war, it couldn't have been any more significant.

If 911 was a false flag and done for the money. Why would y'all trust US regulators when it comes to poker?

Everybody knows where they were on 9/11. It changed the entire world.

The terrorists couldn't have struck at the heart of American any more than this, so to say I'd use simpler ways to justify war, I can't think of anything that would have had such an impact.

The replacement will be called the Freedom Tower- we're fighting in the middle east for our freedom, not the oil.

I think a lot of the focus on the WTC as 'the' symbol of America's power came after 9/11.

Before that I never thought of it as a symbol of power - although it was an icon of New York.

But, ask yourself this:

If you were a corrupt US politico or intelligence department, why would you do something as hard to control as arranging for a group of foreign nationals to learn the basics of flying passenger jets, hijacking said jets and flying them into things when it would have been immeasurably easier and much more certain, to set them up with explosives and accomplish the same thing that way.

Certainly the images of planes flying into the WTC were impressive but as an operation under the control of US intelligence/military it would have been an organisational nightmare.

Funny how this happens, but the deal isnt manipulated according to all the site promoters on here.

Or doesn't.

This mini 9/11 sub-debate is somewhat stimulating.

Wiki and TPTK27, what do you think about the WMD ordeal? It's my understanding that it was likely a complete fabrication to promote the war, and that most Americans don't really care, which is a tad bit amazing and confusing.....

I know I wouldnt. The way the software is rigged on all sites now wont be changed if the U.S. took over, its been working just fine for years. The only people that realize its manipulated are the ones using common sense and logic. Why change something that isnt broke?

TPTK... would you mind telling me how long you think it would take to rig all 3 of the WTC buildings with explosives for a controlled demolition? also is it possible that part of one of the WTC buildings fell onto WTC7 weakening its structure even more than the fires? also why do you keep saying "a few small fires" when that is just blatantly false?

Well at least your consistent in your paranoia.

LOL! So ignorant.

I have always believed that it was, eventually, a complete fabrication and was known as such by the liars bush and bLiar.

They probably originally believed that there may have been some present but when it became clearer and clearer that there weren't (or, if there were, they were not going to find them), they just lied about it.

To my mind they are no better than war criminals. Between the two of them they are responsible for many more deaths then those who conceived and enacted 9/11.

It seems to me that he's nailed it.

Well thank you! Yes, your ignorance is beyond belief. Surprised you would actually agree on something.

Because the official explanation is that fire caused the collapse of WTC7. The East side was on fire, parts of the building were not on fire.

I say small fires in comparison to other similar size steel framed sky scrapers that have endured both longer and more intense fires and haven't come close to collapsing. I've posted the link for this at least 4 times. WTC7 is unique.

How long would it take to rig the WTC buildings, I wouldn't know, it could have been done over months or even years in planning. That is pure speculation, I don't claim to have answers, I just ask questions about the inconsistencies that official 9/11 accounts show.

- Hijacker's passport found in rubble,

- No interception of planes despite air defense knowing 4 passenger planes were hijacked, (Norad have changed the official story 3 times, 3 times!!)

- Removal of crime scene evidence

- No evidence at all a plane hit the Pentagon, just the single eye witness testimony of Allyn Keismer, the guy who was contracted after 9/11 to rebuild it

- 3 sky scrapers falling into thier footprints

- one sky scraper falling into it's own footprint despite not being hit by a plane

- Silverstein insuring the WTC buildings 2 month's before 9/11 for billions, one clause being they don't have to pay the lease in the event of a terrorist attack and any subsequent damage due to attack (seriously guys, seriously, two months before 9/11)

- Flight 93 official crash site is clearly not a crash site, parts scattered miles from crash site,

- Thermite found in the dust of the collapsed buildings

- The use of 9/11 to start the Iraq and Afghan wars, countries which we now use for oil and transport of oil,

Let's change the subject back to rigged poker anyway. Apologies for my posts on 9/11.

Yes, it is funny how this happens but despite it being trivially easy to prove you are all too impoverished or ******* moronic to click a few buttons on PT/HEM.

Would it be biased for you to link to page of carefully selected "eye witness" accounts from people that visited the site after the crash and gave their ill informed opinions on what they would "expect" to see?

Would it be biased of you to not mention the computer simulation that explained the disintegration of the plane and lack of debris? Would it be biased of you to not mention the debris that was found at the site suggesting a jet did hit?

Would it be biased of you to not link to the many eye witness accounts that contradict your opinion whilst implying that the guy in the documentary was a carefully selected exception to the rule?