Wow, I just read that for the first time. That's...incredible. A huge variety of mutually exclusive theories with no evidence. SEC records? Torture reports destroyed? Bin Laden thrown in an ocean long ago?
That's impressive.
Aside from the numerous ad hominems in prior posts, I wanted to give you sources for these
Press Conference Donald Rumsfield announcing $2.3 trillion missing. The next day the DoD office was destroyed by the plane.
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430
CIA destroying its torture tapes
Justice Dept. Says CIA Destroyed 92 Torture Tapes | The Public Record
SEC destroying its record of put option trading specifically on the airliners, resulting in huge pay offs for whomever involved
SEC: Government Destroyed Documents Regarding Pre-9/11 Put Options Washington's Blog
Leaked info from intelligence analysis firm saying Bin Laden was not thrown in the sea, but flown to US and cremated
Osama bin Laden WAS NOT buried at sea, but flown to US for cremation, leaked emails reveal | Mail Online
FBI says in 2006 it has no evidence Bin Laden was connected to 911
FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”
Ok, lets forgoe the CT's, and look at the OCT from a different perspective;
Demolition companies 'claim' that their goal is to get a building to destroy as much of itself as possible, from top to bottm, reducing it to rubble to make the clean up easier. They dont want huge sections of the buildings remaining. Im sure you all can agree to that notion? OCT supporters, you agree with this right?
Ok, demo companies then 'claim' that in order for a building to symmetrically and gravitationally destroy itself from top to bottom, they need to have precise removal of key structural components. They do this a number of ways, the effort involved requires extensive knowledge of engineering, architecture and physics. The demo companies 'claim' that if the precise removal of structural components arent synchronized, the demolition will fail leaving huge chunks of building remaining, in some cases, the building falls a few floors and still stands. Im sure everyone here can agree to that idea? Precise removal of key components in order to allow a full demolition (according to demo companies), can all you OCT supporters agree with that notion?
Ok now heres the kicker, if the OCT is true, then all these demo companies are full of ****. 3 of the strongest steel skyscrapers were reduced to rubble, from fire, perhaps a few floors blown up. Essentially, from here on out, we can destroy steel skyscrapers with fire and a few floors destroyed, as per the OCT. Just light a few floors on fire, bomb a floor or two and viola! building go boom!! No longer do we need to pay demo companies, we can just use kerosene fires! lol
I love the quotes from the news anchors from that day, just objective, unbiased statements about what they see
"The entire building has just collapsed, as if a demolition team set off, when you see the old demolitions of these old buildings, it
folded down on itself, and it is not there any more" - Don Dahler
"If you wish to bring ah .. anybody who ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows .. that if you're going to
do this you have to get at the .. at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down" - Peter Jennings
"Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.” - CBS News anchor Dan Rather
Then there's Danny Jowenk, one of the worlds top demo experts. He was shown wtc7 without knowing what it was and when it happened, so he had an objective unbiased stance. Without a doubt it was a controlled demolition, according to Jowenko. Then he was told it happened on 911, he was shocked, but nonetheless maintained his disposition; he couldnt ignore what he sees. If only OCT supporters could do the same.
I see constant 'where's the evidence', there is plenty, but take note that 'lack of evidence' doesnt always mean it isnt there. Radio waves for example, if I were to tell someone in the 1700's about radio waves, they could demand evidence. If I couldnt provide it, they assume I must be wrong. The lack of 'evidence', doesnt negate the existence of those waves. The same will go for 911, eventually it will be accepted that the OCT is a lie, ppl who still cling to it are in denial, the implications of it are too much for many people. My dad for example, believes the OCT, when I showed him a video of wtc7, his first reaction was 'oh thats fake'. He knew it was a controlled demolition, just couldnt accept the govt lied about it. It seems most deniers are in this boat.