Forums | MacLife

It only happened last night. I haven't seen that happen before on his show.

If been listening to the podcasts, these folks have been shouting out during the last couple weeks. This is actually the second night Maher yelled at security to remove someone. However this seems to the be the first time that Mahar has acknowledged who these hecklers are... and there were obviously a lot more loud hecklers this time around.

I just watched Zeitgeist, and it is full of this "controlled demolition" bullsmurf as well.  While I fully believe the Bush and Company knew that something major was coming, and did nothing to give themselves a reason to enact some really bad policy... there is no way that the WTC was a controlled demolition of any sort.

The sheer amount of explosives needed for building a fraction of the size of the WTC , combined with the way they need to be prepared and wired... it would have been patently obvious that something was up.  I think every 9/11 Truth sort needs to be sat down with one of several informative documentaries about controlled demolition to see how it is really done... and thus how it is virtually impossible that the WTC collapses were controlled and planned demolitions.

Plus, that video completely boosted my respect for Bill.  He didnt freak out, he just had them removed and called it like it is.

Of course such "suppression" is likely to further convince the 9/11 conspiracy theorists that they are right.

Here's my take:

I'm highly suspicious of everything about 9.11. BUT, I don't think the 2 towers were taken down by anything but the planes crashing into them and the physics associated in the aftermath of that. That said, I distrust the motives and explanation behind the takedown of WTC 7. Which, iirc, actually was a controlled demolition.

Lastly, I think that these kinds of incidents are in fact plants meant to discredit the entire idea of questioning the events and possible motives around those events. (IOW, that it was a more or less inside job.) This only smears all 'conspiracy theories'.

Beagle/Bro. wrote:

Here's my take:

I'm highly suspicious of everything about 9.11. BUT, I don't think the 2 towers were taken down by anything but the planes crashing into them and the physics associated in the aftermath of that. That said, I distrust the motives and explanation behind the takedown of WTC 7. Which, iirc, actually was a controlled demolition.

Lastly, I think that these kinds of incidents are in fact plants meant to discredit the entire idea of questioning the events and possible motives around those events. (IOW, that it was a more or less inside job.) This only smears all 'conspiracy theories'.

There was a fire in WTC, the fire department didn't have anyone to fight it, it developed into a 4 alarm fire, the Fire Dept put a transit on the WTC7 to see it was remaining level, and it wasn't. It was slowing bowing and they new structural failure was eminent.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/ … ayden.html

Controlled demolition my ass.

dvpierce wrote:

Warin wrote:

Beagle/Bro. wrote:

Here's my take:

I'm highly suspicious of everything about 9.11. BUT, I don't think the 2 towers were taken down by anything but the planes crashing into them and the physics associated in the aftermath of that. That said, I distrust the motives and explanation behind the takedown of WTC 7. Which, iirc, actually was a controlled demolition.

Lastly, I think that these kinds of incidents are in fact plants meant to discredit the entire idea of questioning the events and possible motives around those events. (IOW, that it was a more or less inside job.) This only smears all 'conspiracy theories'.

Ummm... it takes weeks of preparation with thousands of feet of primacord and explosives to demolish a building.  I doubt they could set it up with the building on fire

They did take a couple weeks - the building was damaged by debris from WTF 1 and 2, and they tore it down rather than repair it.

WTC 7 collapsed on Sept 11, late afternoon.
It had received a ton of damage from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, and a fire smoldred thoughout the day.

Beagle/Bro. wrote:

iSeamas wrote:

dvpierce wrote:

They did take a couple weeks - the building was damaged by debris from WTF 1 and 2, and they tore it down rather than repair it.

WTC 7 collapsed on Sept 11, late afternoon.
It had received a ton of damage from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, and a fire smoldred thoughout the day.

Will you all get your story straight?

He is thinking about buildings 5 and 6. Buildings 5 and 6 were demolished because they were in really bad shape.

Beagle/Bro. wrote:

Aqua OS X wrote:

Beagle/Bro. wrote:

Will you all get your story straight?

He is thinking about buildings 5 and 6. Buildings 5 and 6 were demolished because they were in really bad shape.

And WTC7? I don't think it 'collapsed'. I do think that one (WTC 7) had an agenda beyond what the public story covers/implies.

google 'wtc 7' and look.

You are insane.


What do you think happens to a building when you have large diesel fuel storage tanks which catch fire, and it is structurally compromised by two 110 story buildings collapsing in very close proximity?

Chickenhawk wrote:

Beagle/Bro. wrote:

Aqua OS X wrote:

He is thinking about buildings 5 and 6. Buildings 5 and 6 were demolished because they were in really bad shape.

And WTC7? I don't think it 'collapsed'. I do think that one (WTC 7) had an agenda beyond what the public story covers/implies.

google 'wtc 7' and look.

You are insane.


What do you think happens to a building when you have large diesel fuel storage tanks which catch fire, and it is structurally compromised by two 110 story buildings collapsing in very close proximity?

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Sounds like how we got here, to me. That said, there's this, in rebuttal:
http://www.offbalance.com/art4.html

Uh, folks.  WTC 7 was built over a pre-existing Con Edison electrical substation which for some reason I recall even knowing about before 9/11, but then again I lived there at the time.  There was also diesel fuel there to supply generators.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why the building collapsed quickly

Reminds me of the folks trying to perpetrate a "moon landing hoax" conspiracy theory.

Lots of bad science there.

Most of the sites with the WTC 7 theory are claiming that no steel-built skyscraper has collapsed from fire before - BS really. The main reason why it hasn't happened largely deals with the modern sprinkler systems  and fire doors that Steel-built skyscrapers are equipt with.

WTC 7 was built with such things, but  a huge crater was gouged out of thew south side of the building, dissabling much of it's fire-suppression capabilities.
The building had no water to fight the fire.

The sites also try to make people scratch their heads as to how a "steel building catches fire".
First off- it is the paper, the carpets and office furniture that gets burning.

I'm no great expert in steel, but I do have experience with welding and some foundry work - fire can do many things to steel, and you don't need enough to melt it - you just need enough to make it soft - or make it brittle. A good office fire can do that nicely.

The other thing the sites do is they rarely-if ever show the south side of the building. That was the side facing the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2.
That side took on enourmous damage.

I think that the nature of the WTC 1 and 2 collapse give people the false impression that the collapses were orderley and neat.

I visited Lower Manhattan on Saturday, September 15. My wife and I got as close to the site as the authorities would allow (we were a bit disorientated but we were not far from the Stock Exchange, among other places).
The debris field from the collapse was astounding, damaged vehicles, broken glass as far as Water street. Dust atop of every object in site.

Last edited by iSeamas (2007-10-22 4:24 pm)