9/11 What really happened to WT7?

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

Previous topic - Next topic

muppet

Quote from: BennyCake on September 28, 2016, 05:11:41 PM
There was a load of records in WT7 that needed destroying to get rid of evidence. The day before 9/11 it was announced a deficit of many trillions in the defense department. Next day, it's all forgotten.

Watched a show years ago about WT7, and noticed they retracted this "pull it" statement. Oh we meant to pull the firemen out. In the film, they referred a couple of times that we use this "pull it" to mean what they wanted it to come across as. Bloody nonense.

The military failed to react on 9/11 because they weren't meant to. It was planned to happen.

Many trillions? The US National Debt was less than $6 Trillion at the time. But I have to say it is a very clever way of dealing with debt. Don't seek a bailout, dodn't default, just destroy the records and no one will know.

Greece, Portugal and ourselves didn't need bailouts, we just needed a shredder.
MWWSI 2017

LeoMc

Quote from: dec on September 28, 2016, 05:37:38 PM
For those who believe the controlled demolition theory, when were the explosives planted?

I heard it was Vince Foster and some Israelis. They didn't need much because of the Chemtrails.

haranguerer

Quote from: Fuzzman on September 28, 2016, 05:00:56 PM
I suppose I want to hear what people on here think what happened to make that building fall?

No haranguerer, I'm trying to listen to both sides of the story, find enough sensible evidence to believe and then decide. I suppose I find it hard to believe that the building collapsed the way it did just because of fires.
I think the fires from the towers would have been much hotter due to the airplane fuel and huge explosion but I can't understand why the fires in WT7 would be hot enough to melt steel or cause a collapse
WT7 was quite a distance away from the towers so I don't think enough damage would have been caused to knock it down whereas other buildings didn't fall.

All the sensible evidence is on one side, and its not the conspiracy one. Switch it round, and critically analyse the conspiracy theories in the same way you do the truth - it shouldn't take long to see which one is a load of bollocks

seafoid

Cancers related to asbestos/chemical  exposure from the WTC collapse are now killing significant numbers of New Yorkers who were in the area on the day

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/1-140-wtc-9-11-responders-cancer-article-1.1449499

This is real.
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

BennyCake

You can't just look at 9/11. There's the bigger picture, before and after. What it led to, who benefitted from it, what purpose it served etc.

Not only that, but look at the things that happened that shouldn't, Bush sat in a classroom, military stood down, buildings collapsed because of fire, rubble removed before being assessed, as well as slip ups by media and politicans. All these holes in the story. The reason conspiracies exist is because people have seen these holes and know it was all a stitch up. They're more observant than those who swallow everything fed to them.

The towers were bought and insured weeks before 9/11, and a clause put in about planes hitting them. Coincidence?

Fuzzman

As often is the case nobody is actually answering my main question here.
Why do YOU believe WT7 fell?

I myself don't believe the conspiracy theories but my main reason for starting this thread was to hear people's opinions on why did this large building come crashing down when it was not hit by any airplanes. Was it just the fires? J70 is that what most of your friends/colleagues believe having been there?

Has there been no other examples around the world of a sky scraper collapsing because of fire?

Yes Bennycake but how much of those details are true? Is the insurance story made up to make it look worse?
I too wondered about Bush sat in a classroom but I suppose why not. So much of these stories are open to question. If the rubble really was shipped off to China without being investigated it looks strange but again is it true?

On another note, I thought it was an amazing story of the guy who actually saw the plane come in to his floor and he dived under a table and survived to tell the story.

Up The Middle

The supposed plane which hit the pentagon is the one that gets me. How can there not be security footage of that plane hitting, one of the most secure buildings in the world and not one camera shows a plane hitting the building. You have to admit that's strange. Plus it flew across Washington and nobody picks it up on camera.
I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.

J70

If I was a high rise real estate boy in NYC, I'd have a plane clause too. 1. 9/11 was not the first time planes hit buildings. You can go back to the WW2 era for one hitting the Empire State Building. 2. The air traffic in and around NYC is unreal and constant. Thousands of flights in and out of LGA every day, all of which flies up either side of Manhattan, commercial and tourist and private helicopters, sea planes in and out of the East River, private planes flying in and out of Teterboro and doing and bit of sight seeing (a Yankees pitcher flew into a high rise a decade ago when he miscalculated a turn after being told he was encroaching on LGA airspace).

Where does the nonsense about the rubble come from? They sifted through everything looking for human remains and artifacts FFS, why wouldn't they examine structural elements to find out what happened??

J70

#23
Quote from: Up The Middle on September 29, 2016, 10:58:55 AM
The supposed plane which hit the pentagon is the one that gets me. How can there not be security footage of that plane hitting, one of the most secure buildings in the world and not one camera shows a plane hitting the building. You have to admit that's strange. Plus it flew across Washington and nobody picks it up on camera.

Google is your friend.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaPoD_7TmNc

There is only one known film of the plane hitting WTC1, and that in NYC, one of the most populous cities in the world, in one of the tallest buildings in the world, and near the top of it.

If that film didn't exist, you would all be denying that a plane hit it at all.

Hardy

Quote from: Fuzzman on September 29, 2016, 10:56:05 AM
As often is the case nobody is actually answering my main question here.
Why do YOU believe WT7 fell?

I myself don't believe the conspiracy theories but my main reason for starting this thread was to hear people's opinions on why did this large building come crashing down when it was not hit by any airplanes. Was it just the fires? J70 is that what most of your friends/colleagues believe having been there?
Why do you want people's OPINONS? Go and read the facts. I'm told Google is handy for that kind of thing.

QuoteHas there been no other examples around the world of a sky scraper collapsing because of fire?
See previous answer

QuoteI too wondered about Bush sat in a classroom
Where is a president supposed to be sitting when any particular event, random, unexpected or planned is about to happen?

QuoteSo much of these stories are open to question.
Maybe. the important thing is where you look for the answers.



Up The Middle

Quote from: J70 on September 29, 2016, 11:49:21 AM
Quote from: Up The Middle on September 29, 2016, 10:58:55 AM
The supposed plane which hit the pentagon is the one that gets me. How can there not be security footage of that plane hitting, one of the most secure buildings in the world and not one camera shows a plane hitting the building. You have to admit that's strange. Plus it flew across Washington and nobody picks it up on camera.

Google is your friend.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaPoD_7TmNc

There is only one known film of the plane hitting WTC1, and that in NYC, one of the most populous cities in the world, in one of the tallest buildings in the world, and near the top of it.

If that film didn't exist, you would all be denying that a plane hit it at all.

Yeah but it does exist, that clip on You tube shows nothing. My point is that it is the fuckin Pentagon, how can there not be images or clips showing the plane hit.
I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.

J70

Quote from: Up The Middle on September 29, 2016, 12:08:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 29, 2016, 11:49:21 AM
Quote from: Up The Middle on September 29, 2016, 10:58:55 AM
The supposed plane which hit the pentagon is the one that gets me. How can there not be security footage of that plane hitting, one of the most secure buildings in the world and not one camera shows a plane hitting the building. You have to admit that's strange. Plus it flew across Washington and nobody picks it up on camera.

Google is your friend.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaPoD_7TmNc

There is only one known film of the plane hitting WTC1, and that in NYC, one of the most populous cities in the world, in one of the tallest buildings in the world, and near the top of it.

If that film didn't exist, you would all be denying that a plane hit it at all.

Yeah but it does exist, that clip on You tube shows nothing. My point is that it is the fuckin Pentagon, how can there not be images or clips showing the plane hit.

The clip shows the plane 25 seconds in, then the explosion. Just what do you expect a security cam to show. They're not high speed cameras which will show every metre by metre detail.

Unless you're proposing that the white cylindrical object we see is not a plane and the people purported to be on board, such as the Fox News contributor who was the wife of the then US Solicitor General were in fact disappeared somehow?

Fuzzman

Hardy, how can you decide what is facts and what is opinion?
I mean why did the BBC report WT7 had collapsed when you could still see it over the reporter's shoulder?
I suspect they heard the firefighters expected it to fall and they made a genuine mistake that it had already. Silly mistake though.
I'm already surprised how many on here think it was all made up or at least part of it was.

That pentagon video is hard to make out the aeroplane but this explains it a bit better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8


Bord na Mona man

Imagine if they rigged up Tower 7 like a powder keg with all the explosives in situ, and then the hijackers get accidentally nabbed by airport security.
Or worse still, the building is rigged and ready to go. A few minutes before the planes hit, a janitor drops a cigarette and blows the thing up.


Hardy

Quote from: Fuzzman on September 29, 2016, 12:28:14 PM
Hardy, how can you decide what is facts and what is opinion?
I suppose you have to work on figuring out which are the reliable sources and which are woo woo.

Quote
I mean why did the BBC report WT7 had collapsed when you could still see it over the reporter's shoulder?
I suspect they heard the firefighters expected it to fall and they made a genuine mistake that it had already. Silly mistake though.
That's it. It was a Reuters report, put out in error, picked up by the BBC. The structural engineers were waiting for it to fall and saying so for, I think, hours and Reuters misreported that it had fallen.  Occam's razor. The alternative is a ridiculously complex (as pointed out by BNMM and others) conspiracy that would fall apart if one of its thousand unlikely components didn't fall into place or if one of the huge number of conspirators that would be required blabbed or misspoke, once in fifteen years

QuoteI'm already surprised how many on here think it was all made up or at least part of it was.
Me too.