Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AtulaSiriwardane" data-source="post: 4020019" data-attributes="member: 120286">9/11 attack =SIRASA attack on SIRASA wageda?After the attack on LTTE on IR building 9/11 is surfaced again. Read these theories.. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/sad.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":(" title="Sad    :(" data-shortname=":(" /> <img src="http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1817/osamafakesmkc1.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> <img src="http://911sharethetruth.com/images/WTC-7.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> <img src="http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/707/marvinbushfx5.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />      <img src="http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/5849/reichstagmyspacesmsc2.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> The following images were taken during and after the fire at the Madrid Windsor Tower, which burned at temperatures of 800 celcius and for over 18 hours (AFP). The core of this building did not fail and the building remained standing. <img src="http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/3967/madridfiressd6.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> Below are images of a government building in Caracas, Venezuela which burned for 17 hours in October 2004. This building is Venezuela's highest skyscraper and suffered the destruction of the top twenty of its fifty floors yet the building still did not collapse. <img src="http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/7525/venezfiressmcl3.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> Yet, here are images of World Trade Centre 7, a 47 story steel framed building, which having suffered fires only on a few floors on September 11, 2001, collapsed symetrically at virtually free fall speed and neatly into its own footprint - achievable only using carefully placed explosives. Please bear in mind the following facts; - BUILDING 7 WAS NOT HIT BY AN AIRPLANE  - NO STEEL FRAMED HIGH RISE BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. <img src="http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/7416/wt7firesfy5.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> So..er...maybe this can explain it (click image to view) <a href="http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vdmlkZW8uZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrL3ZpZGVvcGxheT9kb2NpZD0tNzc1MDUzMjM0MDMwNjEwMTMyOSZxPUxhcnJ5K1NpbHZlcnN0ZWlu" target="_blank"><img src="http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/4899/silversteinquotewy6.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a> The term "pull" is used in the controlled demolition industry to refer to the bringing down of a building using explosives. This would certainly explain the various features of the collapse. This kind of project would require weeks, at the very least, to plan and to place the charges in a manner that would result in the neat pile we can witness above. This specialist skill can only be carried out by a small number of controlled demolition companies and, all things considered, it is completely unreasonable to suggest that this is the work of Al-Qaeda alone. One of the arguments that critics of the official account often face when trying to encourage others to research the alternative theories of the events of 9/11 is the suggestion that the conspiracy is just too large: it would require too many people involved to ensure that it remained a secret. This is not necessarily the case, primarily due to the compartmentalization of the various governmental departments, the military and intelligence. Those that are not privy to the real agenda, will merely continue to do their jobs in the belief they are doing what is right, whilst the key decision makers and propagandists will have been carefully placed in those positions in order to carry out the real agenda and help maintain the public myth. In the case of the unprecedented, sudden collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, and whilst it so obviously implicates obvious involvement outside of Al-Qaeda, many people may still refuse to take their research any further due to the main question that this raises and the subsequent "can of worms" that is opened - for example, how would a group of people be able to place the large amount of explosives required for such a demolition weeks before the attacks and all whilst out of the sight of security? So which company was responsible for the security of the World Trade Center complex leading up to 9/11? <img src="http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/707/marvinbushfx5.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> The company was responsible for installing the “security-description plan” which was the layout of the electronic security system—at the World Trade Center. Another of Stratesec’s biggest contracts, between 1995 and 1998, was providing electronic security for Reagan National Airport and Dulles International Airport. Their work included maintaining the airfield access systems and the CCTV (closed circuit television) systems. The building was also no ordinary building in terms of its occupants. At the time of its destruction, it exclusively housed government agencies and financial institutions. Amongst others, it contained offices of the IRS, U.S. Secret Service and the Securities and Exchange Commission and the CIA . Also, on the 23rd floor was the then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management and its emergency command center. This floor had received 15 million dollars worth of renovations, to include independent and secure air and water supplies and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds. This command centre, having been set up to deal with such an attack, was abandoned in favour of a different headquarters on the day of the attacks. Building 7 fell suddenly at 5:20pm on September 11th, 2001 at near free fall speed and into a neat pile. NEVER IN HISTORY has this type of collapse been attributable to anything other than a controlled demolition. Numerous witnesses reported having heard large explosions before and during the collapse. The lease-owner of the building admitted to it having been "pulled". Is it reasonable to ignore this unprecendented collapse because we cannot immediately answer the subsequent questions that this raises? Should we merely disregard the admission of the building's demolition from its leaseholder, Larry Silverstein? Are we to just accept the commission's decision not to interview the company responsible for security, especially in light of the fact that the board included the brother of the President George W Bush, who himself was one of those that benefitted most from the attacks? But what does building 7 matter? Wasn't Osama seen admitting to the attacks in that videotape?  Ah, the videotape...(click image to view) <a href="http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vdmlkZW8uZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrL3ZpZGVvcGxheT9kb2NpZD0tNTE5OTg0NjUwNzA3ODAyOTQ3NiZxPWJpbitsYWRlbitjb25mZXNzaW9u" target="_blank"><img src="http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1817/osamafakesmkc1.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a> ..anyone else smelling a rat yet? Read More <a href="http://www.myspace.com/911truthpeterborough" target="_blank">http://www.myspace.com/911truthpeterborough</a></blockquote>

Verification: Winadiyakata thappara keeyak tibeda?

Top Bottom