9/11 What really happened to WT7?

Started by Fuzzman, September 28, 2016, 04:32:04 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Keyser soze

Can somebody please tell me what was the rationale would have been for demolishing Building 7?

Even a completely crackpot theory will do in lieu of anything sensible.

trailer

Quote from: Keyser soze on September 13, 2018, 11:31:23 AM
Can somebody please tell me what was the rationale would have been for demolishing Building 7?

Even a completely crackpot theory will do in lieu of anything sensible.

The CIA always envied building 7. What with it's cold, dark name and lucky number. The CIA believe they should have control on all dark names and lucky numbers. They showed building 7 once and for all. <evil laugh> 

Hardy

It truly is depressing. Who would ever have predicted that the information age would produce as much misinformation as enlightenment. People genuinely do not seem to have any process for sorting junk, babble and flake from genuine controversy or, much worse, from fact. And it's only going to get worse in a world where virtually everybody under thirty gets their "information" from social media. That's how we get Alex Jones and, ultimately, Trump and Brexit.

For those who genuinely don't know how to sort data and information from fake news and wacko, crackpot nonsense, would you please google a claim and check who disagrees with it and apply some level of judgement to the relative values of the opinions of a blogger in his bedroom and a peer reviewed expert.

Or, at the very least, if it's too much to ask you to check opposing opinions before you inflict your daft ravings on this forum, run them past at least one of these:
https://www.skeptic.com/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/
https://skeptoid.com/
https://www.snopes.com/

trailer

Quote from: Hardy on September 13, 2018, 12:13:58 PM
It truly is depressing. Who would ever have predicted that the information age would produce as much misinformation as enlightenment. People genuinely do not seem to have any process for sorting junk, babble and flake from genuine controversy or, much worse, from fact. And it's only going to get worse in a world where virtually everybody under thirty gets their "information" from social media. That's how we get Alex Jones and, ultimately, Trump and Brexit.

For those who genuinely don't know how to sort data and information from fake news and wacko, crackpot nonsense, would you please google a claim and check who disagrees with it and apply some level of judgement to the relative values of the opinions of a blogger in his bedroom and a peer reviewed expert.

Or, at the very least, if it's too much to ask you to check opposing opinions before you inflict your daft ravings on this forum, run them past at least one of these:
https://www.skeptic.com/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/
https://skeptoid.com/
https://www.snopes.com/

Careful Hardy, you'll be accused of being arrogant.

Esmarelda

Quote from: trailer on September 13, 2018, 12:38:27 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 13, 2018, 12:13:58 PM
It truly is depressing. Who would ever have predicted that the information age would produce as much misinformation as enlightenment. People genuinely do not seem to have any process for sorting junk, babble and flake from genuine controversy or, much worse, from fact. And it's only going to get worse in a world where virtually everybody under thirty gets their "information" from social media. That's how we get Alex Jones and, ultimately, Trump and Brexit.

For those who genuinely don't know how to sort data and information from fake news and wacko, crackpot nonsense, would you please google a claim and check who disagrees with it and apply some level of judgement to the relative values of the opinions of a blogger in his bedroom and a peer reviewed expert.

Or, at the very least, if it's too much to ask you to check opposing opinions before you inflict your daft ravings on this forum, run them past at least one of these:
https://www.skeptic.com/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/
https://skeptoid.com/
https://www.snopes.com/

Careful Hardy, you'll be accused of being arrogant.
Would there be an exhaustive list of sources that one could refer to for guidance? I don't need to know the criteria for making the list. I've been told The Guardian is one and I know a lot of people got very excited when Robert Fisk reported from Syria a while back, but are there any others?

BennyCake

Quote from: Snapchap on September 13, 2018, 10:59:57 AM
Quote from: trailer on September 12, 2018, 11:26:17 AM
Quote from: Dire Ear on September 12, 2018, 11:14:40 AM
Quote from: trailer on September 12, 2018, 10:28:57 AM
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 12, 2018, 01:49:50 AM
Building 7 was not hit by any plane.
The Fire commander leading the fight on the day, said that "the fires in WTC 7 were under control and only needed 2 teams to put it out". He called for the area command to assign the teams to fight the fire. They started to put the fires out, only to be told after half an hour to abandon their positions, and evacuate the building. They argued with the commanders that the fires were almost out, but the commanders radioed they had to evacuate immediately as the building was going to collapse and trap them in it. They radioed back saying they (The commanders) were talking rubbish as there was very little damage to the building and there was no way a collapse was imminent. They were then told not to argue but to evacuate immediately. Leave everything, run. About 5 minutes after evacuating the building it collapsed symmetrically to the ground into it's own footprint.
There are dozens of videos on YTube where firemen talk about what they heard and saw, as they evacuated the building. They describe hearing dozens of explosions from the top of the building on every floor all the way to the bottom. They also describe these explosions as exactly like a demolition.
None of this was ever mentioned in the NIST reports, where they completely ignored any and all testimony regarding explosions, not just in building seven but WTC 1 and 2.

As for the assertion that  multiple structural steel support beams were sheered by an Aluminum can, I guess we will never know because the evidence of what happened to the steel was never gathered due to the steel being removed immediately from the scene of the crime. Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a capital offence btw. Coverup anyone....

This is just f**king bananas. Take a break from the internet lad.
Don't think it's that far-fetched myself

Saying that the American government blew up Building 7 is not far fetched? You're on a level with Willie Frazier and Jim Corr. Good company.

Worth noting that Willie Frazer (among plenty of others) maintained that state collusion was a conspiracy theory. There are still those who would accuse you of mad conspiracy theories for suggesting that the British State orchestrated the slaughter of innocent civilians in Dublin & Monaghan in May 1974, for instance.

I'm not suggesting I necessarily believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if the world was made up solely of people who sneered at every seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, it would be a dangerous world where states could get away with a lot more than what we already now know they have been up to.

Exactly. It's like Bush said once, telling people not to believe these conspiracy theories... You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. So you're not a proper American if you question 9/11. Clever propaganda line.

trailer

Quote from: BennyCake on September 13, 2018, 01:38:12 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 13, 2018, 10:59:57 AM
Quote from: trailer on September 12, 2018, 11:26:17 AM
Quote from: Dire Ear on September 12, 2018, 11:14:40 AM
Quote from: trailer on September 12, 2018, 10:28:57 AM
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 12, 2018, 01:49:50 AM
Building 7 was not hit by any plane.
The Fire commander leading the fight on the day, said that "the fires in WTC 7 were under control and only needed 2 teams to put it out". He called for the area command to assign the teams to fight the fire. They started to put the fires out, only to be told after half an hour to abandon their positions, and evacuate the building. They argued with the commanders that the fires were almost out, but the commanders radioed they had to evacuate immediately as the building was going to collapse and trap them in it. They radioed back saying they (The commanders) were talking rubbish as there was very little damage to the building and there was no way a collapse was imminent. They were then told not to argue but to evacuate immediately. Leave everything, run. About 5 minutes after evacuating the building it collapsed symmetrically to the ground into it's own footprint.
There are dozens of videos on YTube where firemen talk about what they heard and saw, as they evacuated the building. They describe hearing dozens of explosions from the top of the building on every floor all the way to the bottom. They also describe these explosions as exactly like a demolition.
None of this was ever mentioned in the NIST reports, where they completely ignored any and all testimony regarding explosions, not just in building seven but WTC 1 and 2.

As for the assertion that  multiple structural steel support beams were sheered by an Aluminum can, I guess we will never know because the evidence of what happened to the steel was never gathered due to the steel being removed immediately from the scene of the crime. Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a capital offence btw. Coverup anyone....

This is just f**king bananas. Take a break from the internet lad.
Don't think it's that far-fetched myself

Saying that the American government blew up Building 7 is not far fetched? You're on a level with Willie Frazier and Jim Corr. Good company.

Worth noting that Willie Frazer (among plenty of others) maintained that state collusion was a conspiracy theory. There are still those who would accuse you of mad conspiracy theories for suggesting that the British State orchestrated the slaughter of innocent civilians in Dublin & Monaghan in May 1974, for instance.

I'm not suggesting I necessarily believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if the world was made up solely of people who sneered at every seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, it would be a dangerous world where states could get away with a lot more than what we already now know they have been up to.

Exactly. It's like Bush said once, telling people not to believe these conspiracy theories... You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. So you're not a proper American if you question 9/11. Clever propaganda line.

Can anyone name one outlandish conspiracy theory that was sneered at and has since been proven true?

thebigfella

Quote from: trailer on September 13, 2018, 01:57:22 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 13, 2018, 01:38:12 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 13, 2018, 10:59:57 AM
Quote from: trailer on September 12, 2018, 11:26:17 AM
Quote from: Dire Ear on September 12, 2018, 11:14:40 AM
Quote from: trailer on September 12, 2018, 10:28:57 AM
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 12, 2018, 01:49:50 AM
Building 7 was not hit by any plane.
The Fire commander leading the fight on the day, said that "the fires in WTC 7 were under control and only needed 2 teams to put it out". He called for the area command to assign the teams to fight the fire. They started to put the fires out, only to be told after half an hour to abandon their positions, and evacuate the building. They argued with the commanders that the fires were almost out, but the commanders radioed they had to evacuate immediately as the building was going to collapse and trap them in it. They radioed back saying they (The commanders) were talking rubbish as there was very little damage to the building and there was no way a collapse was imminent. They were then told not to argue but to evacuate immediately. Leave everything, run. About 5 minutes after evacuating the building it collapsed symmetrically to the ground into it's own footprint.
There are dozens of videos on YTube where firemen talk about what they heard and saw, as they evacuated the building. They describe hearing dozens of explosions from the top of the building on every floor all the way to the bottom. They also describe these explosions as exactly like a demolition.
None of this was ever mentioned in the NIST reports, where they completely ignored any and all testimony regarding explosions, not just in building seven but WTC 1 and 2.

As for the assertion that  multiple structural steel support beams were sheered by an Aluminum can, I guess we will never know because the evidence of what happened to the steel was never gathered due to the steel being removed immediately from the scene of the crime. Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a capital offence btw. Coverup anyone....

This is just f**king bananas. Take a break from the internet lad.
Don't think it's that far-fetched myself

Saying that the American government blew up Building 7 is not far fetched? You're on a level with Willie Frazier and Jim Corr. Good company.

Worth noting that Willie Frazer (among plenty of others) maintained that state collusion was a conspiracy theory. There are still those who would accuse you of mad conspiracy theories for suggesting that the British State orchestrated the slaughter of innocent civilians in Dublin & Monaghan in May 1974, for instance.

I'm not suggesting I necessarily believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if the world was made up solely of people who sneered at every seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, it would be a dangerous world where states could get away with a lot more than what we already now know they have been up to.

Exactly. It's like Bush said once, telling people not to believe these conspiracy theories... You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. So you're not a proper American if you question 9/11. Clever propaganda line.

Can anyone name one outlandish conspiracy theory that was sneered at and has since been proven true?

The moon landings have been shown to be fake - now that we know the world is flat it's obvious those pics looking back at earth were staged.

Snapchap

Quote from: trailer on September 13, 2018, 01:57:22 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 13, 2018, 01:38:12 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 13, 2018, 10:59:57 AM
Quote from: trailer on September 12, 2018, 11:26:17 AM
Quote from: Dire Ear on September 12, 2018, 11:14:40 AM
Quote from: trailer on September 12, 2018, 10:28:57 AM
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 12, 2018, 01:49:50 AM
Building 7 was not hit by any plane.
The Fire commander leading the fight on the day, said that "the fires in WTC 7 were under control and only needed 2 teams to put it out". He called for the area command to assign the teams to fight the fire. They started to put the fires out, only to be told after half an hour to abandon their positions, and evacuate the building. They argued with the commanders that the fires were almost out, but the commanders radioed they had to evacuate immediately as the building was going to collapse and trap them in it. They radioed back saying they (The commanders) were talking rubbish as there was very little damage to the building and there was no way a collapse was imminent. They were then told not to argue but to evacuate immediately. Leave everything, run. About 5 minutes after evacuating the building it collapsed symmetrically to the ground into it's own footprint.
There are dozens of videos on YTube where firemen talk about what they heard and saw, as they evacuated the building. They describe hearing dozens of explosions from the top of the building on every floor all the way to the bottom. They also describe these explosions as exactly like a demolition.
None of this was ever mentioned in the NIST reports, where they completely ignored any and all testimony regarding explosions, not just in building seven but WTC 1 and 2.

As for the assertion that  multiple structural steel support beams were sheered by an Aluminum can, I guess we will never know because the evidence of what happened to the steel was never gathered due to the steel being removed immediately from the scene of the crime. Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a capital offence btw. Coverup anyone....

This is just f**king bananas. Take a break from the internet lad.
Don't think it's that far-fetched myself

Saying that the American government blew up Building 7 is not far fetched? You're on a level with Willie Frazier and Jim Corr. Good company.

Worth noting that Willie Frazer (among plenty of others) maintained that state collusion was a conspiracy theory. There are still those who would accuse you of mad conspiracy theories for suggesting that the British State orchestrated the slaughter of innocent civilians in Dublin & Monaghan in May 1974, for instance.

I'm not suggesting I necessarily believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if the world was made up solely of people who sneered at every seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, it would be a dangerous world where states could get away with a lot more than what we already now know they have been up to.

Exactly. It's like Bush said once, telling people not to believe these conspiracy theories... You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. So you're not a proper American if you question 9/11. Clever propaganda line.

Can anyone name one outlandish conspiracy theory that was sneered at and has since been proven true?

In the early years of the troubles, British state collusion was widely mocked as a conspiracy theory and republican propaganda. People for instance, who were insistent that the Dublin/Monaghan bombings were carried out with the involvement of the British State were mocked, defamed and had their names 'blackened' as being republican sympathisers. We now know it was carried out by the Glenanne Gang, a UVF gang which was formed, armed and directed by British 'security' forces and made up almost exclusively of members of those 'security forces', and we now know that the British Government did everything in it's power to obstruct the investigations by the Barron Inquiry.

If people hadn't continued to insist on asking probing questions while others mocked them, then we wouldn't know a fraction of what we know today regarding the British State actively colluding in the assassination of 'their own' citizens.

So again, just because 99% of 'outlandish' conspiracy theories are utterly stupid, it's equally stupid to sneer at the very notion that just sometimes, some of them might be on to something.

north_antrim_hound

I like a good conspiracy theory as good as anyone but not even the Bush administration would do this to its own citizens.
You can't compare 9/11 to collusion in the north as the British are well capable of such atrocities against Irish nationalists 
There's a man with a mullet going mad with a mallet in Millets

J70

There is no comparison between allegations of collusion in the wee six and the 9/11 conspiracy theories. British army units and police could easily (and plausibly) collude with loyalist terrorists, especially with people of loyalist sympathies, who might also have been personally touched by IRA atrocities, among their ranks. It's not even on the same planet in terms of plausibility to suggest that a range of people, across numerous federal, state and local agencies, could conspire to enact and subsequently keep quiet about the various acts of sabotage and conspiracy that would be necessary to conduct 9/11.

Jell 0 Biafra

Quote from: trailer on September 13, 2018, 01:57:22 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 13, 2018, 01:38:12 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 13, 2018, 10:59:57 AM
Quote from: trailer on September 12, 2018, 11:26:17 AM
Quote from: Dire Ear on September 12, 2018, 11:14:40 AM
Quote from: trailer on September 12, 2018, 10:28:57 AM
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 12, 2018, 01:49:50 AM
Building 7 was not hit by any plane.
The Fire commander leading the fight on the day, said that "the fires in WTC 7 were under control and only needed 2 teams to put it out". He called for the area command to assign the teams to fight the fire. They started to put the fires out, only to be told after half an hour to abandon their positions, and evacuate the building. They argued with the commanders that the fires were almost out, but the commanders radioed they had to evacuate immediately as the building was going to collapse and trap them in it. They radioed back saying they (The commanders) were talking rubbish as there was very little damage to the building and there was no way a collapse was imminent. They were then told not to argue but to evacuate immediately. Leave everything, run. About 5 minutes after evacuating the building it collapsed symmetrically to the ground into it's own footprint.
There are dozens of videos on YTube where firemen talk about what they heard and saw, as they evacuated the building. They describe hearing dozens of explosions from the top of the building on every floor all the way to the bottom. They also describe these explosions as exactly like a demolition.
None of this was ever mentioned in the NIST reports, where they completely ignored any and all testimony regarding explosions, not just in building seven but WTC 1 and 2.

As for the assertion that  multiple structural steel support beams were sheered by an Aluminum can, I guess we will never know because the evidence of what happened to the steel was never gathered due to the steel being removed immediately from the scene of the crime. Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a capital offence btw. Coverup anyone....

This is just f**king bananas. Take a break from the internet lad.
Don't think it's that far-fetched myself

Saying that the American government blew up Building 7 is not far fetched? You're on a level with Willie Frazier and Jim Corr. Good company.

Worth noting that Willie Frazer (among plenty of others) maintained that state collusion was a conspiracy theory. There are still those who would accuse you of mad conspiracy theories for suggesting that the British State orchestrated the slaughter of innocent civilians in Dublin & Monaghan in May 1974, for instance.

I'm not suggesting I necessarily believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if the world was made up solely of people who sneered at every seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, it would be a dangerous world where states could get away with a lot more than what we already now know they have been up to.

Exactly. It's like Bush said once, telling people not to believe these conspiracy theories... You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. So you're not a proper American if you question 9/11. Clever propaganda line.

Can anyone name one outlandish conspiracy theory that was sneered at and has since been proven true?


I don't know how outlandish conspiracies have to be to qualify, but there was the gulf of Tonkin incident, in which US government officials knowingly deceived the public leading to the Vietnam war.  https://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-02/truth-about-tonkin   And for both the Gulf war and the Iraq war, there were orchestrated attempts to deceive the public about the need to go to war. 
When people in power collude secretly to achieve aims that are not in the public interest, what is that only a conspiracy?

Insane Bolt

Quote from: Hardy on September 13, 2018, 12:13:58 PM
It truly is depressing. Who would ever have predicted that the information age would produce as much misinformation as enlightenment. People genuinely do not seem to have any process for sorting junk, babble and flake from genuine controversy or, much worse, from fact. And it's only going to get worse in a world where virtually everybody under thirty gets their "information" from social media. That's how we get Alex Jones and, ultimately, Trump and Brexit.

For those who genuinely don't know how to sort data and information from fake news and wacko, crackpot nonsense, would you please google a claim and check who disagrees with it and apply some level of judgement to the relative values of the opinions of a blogger in his bedroom and a peer reviewed expert.

Or, at the very least, if it's too much to ask you to check opposing opinions before you inflict your daft ravings on this forum, run them past at least one of these:
https://www.skeptic.com/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/
https://skeptoid.com/
https://www.snopes.com/

Hardy, what in your opinion makes snopes credible? I'm a total sceptic and I'm curious as to how they came about and who funds them?

Snapchap

#148
Quote from: J70 on September 13, 2018, 02:33:04 PM
There is no comparison between allegations of collusion in the wee six and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on September 13, 2018, 02:25:44 PM
You can't compare 9/11 to collusion in the north as the British are well capable of such atrocities against Irish nationalists 

And yet the fact remains that in the early years of the conflict, the notion that the British state was colluding in the assassinations of Irish citizens WAS deemed a conspiracy theory. It's very easy to say now, purely with the benefit of hindsight, that it's not a fair comparison with contemporary conspiracy theories. But to my mind the real reason you lads are saying it's not a 'fair' comparison is because the collusion one was proven to have been true - possibly to a greater extent that anyone even anticipated - and that makes it hard to square it with what are regarded today as outlandish theories surrounding other events, due to the outlandish nature of them. But that's the essence of conspiracy theories. They are generally outlandish. That the collusion one has since been vindicated doesn't mean it was any less of a sneered at as an outlandish conspiracy theory in the early days. Hindsight should show that some previously termed 'outlandish conspiracy theories' can, occasionally, turn out to be true.

P.S. My initial post was not necessarily intended as a comparison with 9/11. It was in response to 'Trailer' who asked for an example of a conspiracy theory which turned out to be true, since he didn't appear to believe there was such any such examples.

J70

Quote from: Snapchap on September 13, 2018, 02:46:16 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 13, 2018, 02:33:04 PM
There is no comparison between allegations of collusion in the wee six and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on September 13, 2018, 02:25:44 PM
You can't compare 9/11 to collusion in the north as the British are well capable of such atrocities against Irish nationalists 

And yet the fact remains that in the early years of the conflict, the notion that the British state was colluding in the assassinations of Irish citizens WAS deemed a conspiracy theory. It's very easy to say now, purely with the benefit of hindsight, that it's not a fair comparison with contemporary conspiracy theories. But to my mind the real reason you lads are saying it's not a 'fair' comparison is because the collusion one was proven to have been true - possibly to a greater extent that anyone even anticipated - and that makes it hard to square it with what are regarded today as outlandish theories surrounding other events, due to the outlandish nature of them. But that's the essence of conspiracy theories. They are generally outlandish. That the collusion one has since been vindicated doesn't mean it was any less of a sneered at as an outlandish conspiracy theory in the early days. Hindsight should show that some previously termed 'outlandish conspiracy theories' can, occasionally, turn out to be true.

P.S. My initial post was not necessarily intended as a comparison with 9/11. It was in response to 'Trailer' who asked for an example of a conspiracy theory which turned out to be true, since he didn't appear to believe there was such any such examples.

I'm talking about plausibility.

British collusion with loyalists was easily accomplished given the common enemy and the sympathies of the various parties.

The various 9/11 conspiracies require involvement of people across numerous agencies along with ignorance of many, many more people who also worked in those agencies and locations. They then require a massive cover-up and continued silence, seventeen years later. Add to that the failure of the conspiracy theorists to provide even a scintilla of legitimate evidence to support their half-baked claims.