World trade centre 7 - What really happened? Did it just fall because of the fires and damage caused from the other towers or is there lies being told?
I recorded a few 9/11 shows there a few weeks back and it's interesting all the different stories you hear.
I'm sure there were loads of discussion about this over the years but having heard a lot of the conspiracy theories lately I just wondered where to people stand with this now, especially those of you living in NYC or the US.
Many people don't question anything but to me there are some things which do seem rather peculiar. For me why were they so slow to send in the air force to these hijacked planes?
So much of the stuff on youtube seems to point at a demolition job on WT7 and a big insurance payout for Larry Silverstein where he allegedly said...
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
However he could have simply meant pull the firefighters out of there.
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/696-faq-10-did-wtc-7-owner-larry-silverstein-admit-to-ordering-the-controlled-demolition-of-the-building-.html
I must say I usually don't believe all the conspiracy theories but there still seems to be a lot of mystery about why and how WT7 fell as no other high rise building ever fell just because of fire.
Also the way that the BBC and CNN had reported it had fallen before it actually had was very strange. Why would they do that?
The way all the rubble and steel was taken away afterwards and not investigated like it was with the other two towers.
Of course you don't know who's telling the truth and who just got their stories mixed up. So many who were interviewed near the scene said they could clearly hear explosions before the towers fell.
I'm just curious where people stand now 15 years later and what the mood is in NY these days.
It depends.
If you are a conspiracy loon you believe this sort of nonsense.
If you are normal you don't.
It does seem very odd.
I remember looking into a bit a year or so ago, when the poster on here called Seamus said that this was proof that the whole 9/11 was a US plot.
From memory there is a detailed wiki page on WT7, and it has plausible answers to all the weird WT7 "facts" and I think concludes that it did genuinely fall down as some kind of after-effect of the twin towers coming down. But obviously wiki wouldn't be gospel!
It sounds like you do believe the conspiracy theorists, and if that's the best they can come up with its an utter load of sh**e.
Just to pick one thing - bbc and cnn reporting the buildings had fell before they actually had....so you go to the trouble of setting up a massive plot to blow up the WTC, but can't contain your excitement so you pre-warn the bbc and cnn??
The WTC was destroyed by Hillary clinton's email server. But you won't hear that in the libtard media.
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.
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.
For those who believe the controlled demolition theory, when were the explosives planted?
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.
So they planned this in a day?? So how many people were involved in this and why after 15 years there is not one shred of evidence, real evidence that it was allowed to happen by the USA government??
God I can't wait until Stew gets round to trying to read this thread.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 28, 2016, 05:38:32 PM
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.
So they planned this in a day?? So how many people were involved in this and why after 15 years there is not one shred of evidence, real evidence that it was allowed to happen by the USA government??
There is only evidence when you want to find it. We have been manipulated by the higher powers for long time. How many years has America been out of war this past 100 years? Being a 'conspiracy loop' is what? having a brain and questioning reality???
Countless witnesses have been found out as actors, liars etc on so many of America recent home terrorist attacks but the mainstream media ignore it.
Quote from: Fuzzman on September 28, 2016, 04:32:04 PM
World trade centre 7 - What really happened? Did it just fall because of the fires and damage caused from the other towers or is there lies being told?
I recorded a few 9/11 shows there a few weeks back and it's interesting all the different stories you hear.
I'm sure there were loads of discussion about this over the years but having heard a lot of the conspiracy theories lately I just wondered where to people stand with this now, especially those of you living in NYC or the US.
Many people don't question anything but to me there are some things which do seem rather peculiar. For me why were they so slow to send in the air force to these hijacked planes?
So much of the stuff on youtube seems to point at a demolition job on WT7 and a big insurance payout for Larry Silverstein where he allegedly said...
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
However he could have simply meant pull the firefighters out of there.
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/696-faq-10-did-wtc-7-owner-larry-silverstein-admit-to-ordering-the-controlled-demolition-of-the-building-.html
I must say I usually don't believe all the conspiracy theories but there still seems to be a lot of mystery about why and how WT7 fell as no other high rise building ever fell just because of fire.
Also the way that the BBC and CNN had reported it had fallen before it actually had was very strange. Why would they do that?
The way all the rubble and steel was taken away afterwards and not investigated like it was with the other two towers.
Of course you don't know who's telling the truth and who just got their stories mixed up. So many who were interviewed near the scene said they could clearly hear explosions before the towers fell.
I'm just curious where people stand now 15 years later and what the mood is in NY these days.
"However he could have simply meant pull the firefighters out of there"
Ya think?!! ;D
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/ (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/)
As for the mood in NYC, I've been back here 12 years and I've yet to hear a single person subscribe to any of these conspiracy theories. In my current job, I work with quite a few people who were based in WTC7 and were evacuated that morning. In a previous job, I worked with one of the major outfits in the WTC site and knew a lot of people who were there that day, in the towers when they were hit.
The idea that this was an inside job is just pure paranoid stupidity, like the "faked" moon landings and the rest. How in the name of christ could something like this be kept secret? And exactly who is supposed to be responsible and why?
You're a sensible, intelligent lad Fuzzman. Don't fall for this half-baked shite.
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on September 29, 2016, 12:17:14 AM
There is only evidence when you want to find it. We have been manipulated by the higher powers for long time. How many years has America been out of war this past 100 years? Being a 'conspiracy loop' is what? having a brain and questioning reality???
Countless witnesses have been found out as actors, liars etc on so many of America recent home terrorist attacks but the mainstream media ignore it.
Could you give us an example of one?
Quote from: dec on September 29, 2016, 03:00:15 AM
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on September 29, 2016, 12:17:14 AM
There is only evidence when you want to find it. We have been manipulated by the higher powers for long time. How many years has America been out of war this past 100 years? Being a 'conspiracy loop' is what? having a brain and questioning reality???
Countless witnesses have been found out as actors, liars etc on so many of America recent home terrorist attacks but the mainstream media ignore it.
Could you give us an example of one?
But that would imply that they're actually countable after all.
I know a few lads whose actual education should mean that know better, who tried to tell me that since the fire wasnt hot enough to melt steel something else must have caused them to fall down and for them to fall straight down it meant that the.
When I asked why did the steel have to melt to yield they realised their mistake and started getting animated, a quick google gave me a detailed explanation of the dynamics of the towers' fall, from memory they fell straight down because there's nothing in them, it was the fasted way down and the floors went like dominos
I never looked into WT7 but have a quick google, no doubt it can be explained to. Have a look at all the evidence and explanations and I mean all of it....then decide for yourself
People should always ask questions about these things and it actually a good thing to do, problem is people will persist in belief of these things simply because for some strange reason they want to believe it.
By the way did anyone hear the one about SpaceX's rocket was blown up by a UFO recently?
My personal favourite is that the US government caused Hurricane Katrina.... seriously we cant give a good weather forecast for more than a few days but somehow the US government was able to conjure up a tropical depression and send it across the Atlantic Ocean, and direct it straight into New Orleans with some sort of shock wave machine or something.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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??
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 (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.
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.
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 (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.
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 (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?
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8)
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.
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.
Quote from: Hardy on September 29, 2016, 12:43:23 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on September 29, 2016, 12:28:14 PM
I'm already surprised how many on here think it was all made up or at least part of it was.
Me too.
I'm not.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on September 29, 2016, 12:30:02 PM
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.
Imagine if there was a truck load of ZIP firelighters in the area at the time and a child with a magnifying glass was standing in front of a toyshop for 10 minutes in the sun.
Just use this (http://crispian-jago.blogspot.ie/2013/04/the-conspiracy-theory-flowchart-they.html).
Quote from: Hardy on September 29, 2016, 01:49:39 PM
Just use this (http://crispian-jago.blogspot.ie/2013/04/the-conspiracy-theory-flowchart-they.html).
;D
Everybody knows this building was brought down by an organised conspiracy - a crack squad of former Dublin footballers are the prime suspects.
Quote from: J70 on September 29, 2016, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 29, 2016, 01:49:39 PM
Just use this (http://crispian-jago.blogspot.ie/2013/04/the-conspiracy-theory-flowchart-they.html).
;D
Saudi funded radical Muslim Jihadists flew planes into the towers and they collapsed as a result, there, sorted!
Quote from: stew on September 29, 2016, 03:02:48 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 29, 2016, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 29, 2016, 01:49:39 PM
Just use this (http://crispian-jago.blogspot.ie/2013/04/the-conspiracy-theory-flowchart-they.html).
;D
Saudi funded radical Muslim Jihadists flew planes into the towers and they collapsed as a result, there, sorted!
We agree!
Quote from: sid waddell on September 29, 2016, 03:00:24 PM
Everybody knows this building was brought down by an organised conspiracy - a crack squad of former Dublin footballers are the prime suspects.
Unlikely they would go as far as Newbridge, never mind New York. :D
3 pages and still nobody has given me a good reason to why building 7 fell.
Forget about the bigger picture and whether it's just people making up shit.
Do people think the building fell because it burned all day long and then couldn't support itself any more?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU
If it had not have fallen would they have had to demolish it anyway to rebuild it?
How did the fires start?
Quote from: Fuzzman on September 29, 2016, 03:57:43 PM
3 pages and still nobody has given me a good reason to why building 7 fell.
Forget about the bigger picture and whether it's just people making up shit.
Do people think the building fell because it burned all day long and then couldn't support itself any more?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU
If it had not have fallen would they have had to demolish it anyway to rebuild it?
How did the fires start?
There is no good reason why it fell, other than it was wired with explosives.
Quote from: Fuzzman on September 29, 2016, 03:57:43 PM
3 pages and still nobody has given me a good reason to why building 7 fell.
Forget about the bigger picture and whether it's just people making up shit.
Do people think the building fell because it burned all day long and then couldn't support itself any more?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU
If it had not have fallen would they have had to demolish it anyway to rebuild it?
How did the fires start?
I gave you a link from Popular Mechanics a couple of pages back talking about the NIST investigation on why it fell. Read it.
Quote3 pages and still nobody has given me a good reason to why building 7 fell.
Forget about the bigger picture and whether it's just people making up shit.
Do people think the building fell because it burned all day long and then couldn't support itself any more?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU
If it had not have fallen would they have had to demolish it anyway to rebuild it?
How did the fires start?
I'd hazard a guess and say that the fact that two skyscapers fell beside WT7 did enough to undermine the building stability and foundations, so it collapsed. I wouldn't consider it as a mystery.
Exactly balladmaker. Don't forget most of New York is built on shit ground (getting very technical) and the vibration alone would be enough to cause a collapse.
Quote from: Hardy on September 29, 2016, 01:49:39 PM
Just use this (http://crispian-jago.blogspot.ie/2013/04/the-conspiracy-theory-flowchart-they.html).
Its still early on the West Coast, but I see something better than this today, it will be something to look forward to!
Quote from: BennyCake on September 29, 2016, 04:02:31 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on September 29, 2016, 03:57:43 PM
3 pages and still nobody has given me a good reason to why building 7 fell.
Forget about the bigger picture and whether it's just people making up shit.
Do people think the building fell because it burned all day long and then couldn't support itself any more?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU
If it had not have fallen would they have had to demolish it anyway to rebuild it?
How did the fires start?
There is no good reason why it fell, other than it was wired with explosives.
When did they wire it with explosives?
Quote from: Hereiam on September 29, 2016, 04:24:44 PM
Exactly balladmaker. Don't forget most of New York is built on shit ground (getting very technical) and the vibration alone would be enough to cause a collapse.
South Manhattan was a swamp originally.
Also under the WTC (below the waterline) there were a couple of subway lines and a station. Two giant towers collapsing into that would have created massive stress for everything nearby by. As for the fires, 2 767s with fuel for flights from the East coast to the West coast could he been the sources of the fires.
Quote from: dec on September 29, 2016, 04:49:07 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 29, 2016, 04:02:31 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on September 29, 2016, 03:57:43 PM
3 pages and still nobody has given me a good reason to why building 7 fell.
Forget about the bigger picture and whether it's just people making up shit.
Do people think the building fell because it burned all day long and then couldn't support itself any more?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU
If it had not have fallen would they have had to demolish it anyway to rebuild it?
How did the fires start?
There is no good reason why it fell, other than it was wired with explosives.
When did they wire it with explosives?
The day before apparently :o well that's what one of the posters here said!! Couldn't make it up!
Quote from: muppet on September 29, 2016, 03:36:47 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on September 29, 2016, 03:00:24 PM
Everybody knows this building was brought down by an organised conspiracy - a crack squad of former Dublin footballers are the prime suspects.
Unlikely they would go as far as Newbridge, never mind New York. :D
Sure they didn't have to go as far as Newlands Cross, never mind New York.
The conspirators on the ground over there (variously code named "Mossy-ad" or "Al-Quinneda") were given the signal to go ahead and implode the building through a series of coded Irish newspaper articles by the crack WTC organising squad of former Dublin footballers in the days beforehand.
WTC may be commonly thought to stand for "World Trade Center", but it really stands for Whelan, Tomas and Clarke.
OK I had a read of a few websites on the report and I will try to put my understanding of it into the simplest of terms
When steel is heated it expands, this expansion meant that the columns holding the floors up move primarily along their length.
This movement in turn caused two things..
Firstly is meant that the columns began to buckle (bend) as they where had become too long between their connection points
Next the movement of the steel meant the bolt connections wanted to move away from to their connections points to the floors and other columns, this caused the bolts that where making the connections to fail. The connections to the floors failed first leaving the column free to put all the load from the expansion on its end connections. The end connections holding the columns up failed also causing a floor to collapse.
When one floor fell it left vertical columns unsupported which in turn also failed and this also caused other floors to fall, this combined with the dynamic loading of the falling floors onto the already weakened steel columns and connections caused the dramatically rapid collapse.
The investigators found the buckled columns and the sheared connections supporting this theory
My understanding is open to corrections, and clarification
The only valid conspiracy arising from this attack happened post 9/11 attack. Although accepted as fact by the US Gov that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, they still conspired to deceive the public on the matter, eventually aiding justification of the invasion, rape and pillage of Iraq and subsequent loss of life of 100s of thousands.
Quote from: muppet on September 29, 2016, 04:50:22 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on September 29, 2016, 04:24:44 PM
Exactly balladmaker. Don't forget most of New York is built on shit ground (getting very technical) and the vibration alone would be enough to cause a collapse.
South Manhattan was a swamp originally.
Also under the WTC (below the waterline) there were a couple of subway lines and a station. Two giant towers collapsing into that would have created massive stress for everything nearby by. As for the fires, 2 767s with fuel for flights from the East coast to the West coast could he been the sources of the fires.
This is nothing to do with why it collapsed, dreaming up stuff that might be logical but ultimately only adds fuels to the "alternative theories"
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 05:42:23 PM
OK I had a read of a few websites on the report and I will try to put my understanding of it into the simplest of terms
When steel is heated it expands, this expansion meant that the columns holding the floors up move primarily along their length.
This movement in turn caused two things..
Firstly is meant that the columns began to buckle (bend) as they where had become too long between their connection points
Next the movement of the steel meant the bolt connections wanted to move away from to their connections points to the floors and other columns, this caused the bolts that where making the connections to fail. The connections to the floors failed first leaving the column free to put all the load from the expansion on its end connections. The end connections holding the columns up failed also causing a floor to collapse.
When one floor fell it left vertical columns unsupported which in turn also failed and this also caused other floors to fall, this combined with the dynamic loading of the falling floors onto the already weakened steel columns and connections caused the dramatically rapid collapse.
The investigators found the buckled columns and the sheared connections supporting this theory
My understanding is open to corrections, and clarification
Some of these boys think the steel has to melt to cause a collapse, whereas in reality it only has to heat, expand and weaken enough for it to buckle.
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉
So you're a structural engineer with demolition expertise too?
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉
Sources?
What is "practically nil"? Is that "impossible"? "Unlikely"? "Unusual"?
So "no structure underneath"-speed collapse is accomplished how? How fast should it have collapsed?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 29, 2016, 08:43:56 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉
So you're a structural engineer with demolition expertise too?
No demolition experience.... Except for full back lines 😉😉
Quote from: J70 on September 29, 2016, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉
Sources?
What is "practically nil"? Is that "impossible"? "Unlikely"? "Unusual"?
So "no structure underneath"-speed collapse is accomplished how? How fast should it have collapsed?
Very highly unlikely and Gravity is a constant.
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 09:09:17 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 29, 2016, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉
Sources?
What is "practically nil"? Is that "impossible"? "Unlikely"? "Unusual"?
So "no structure underneath"-speed collapse is accomplished how? How fast should it have collapsed?
Very highly unlikely and Gravity is a constant.
Worked and taught engineering (metal work ) and there are many grades of steel and fire proof materials attached to the twin towers was proved to have been poor and in lots of places non existent !!
The building came down as already stated the floors just crashed down on top of each other and that was that I'd imagine under the towers the foundations sent tremors to other building causing them to collapse also, went up it the year it was first attempted to be blown up, when a bomb went off in the underground car park ... 93? I think plenty security at the building ever since, we were searched on way in, so difficult to bring in enough bombs plant them and get away with it I'd say
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 29, 2016, 09:19:28 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 09:09:17 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 29, 2016, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉
Sources?
What is "practically nil"? Is that "impossible"? "Unlikely"? "Unusual"?
So "no structure underneath"-speed collapse is accomplished how? How fast should it have collapsed?
Very highly unlikely and Gravity is a constant.
Worked and taught engineering (metal work ) and there are many grades of steel and fire proof materials attached to the twin towers was proved to have been poor and in lots of places non existent !!
The building came down as already stated the floors just crashed down on top of each other and that was that I'd imagine under the towers the foundations sent tremors to other building causing them to collapse also, went up it the year it was first attempted to be blown up, when a bomb went off in the underground car park ... 93? I think plenty security at the building ever since, we were searched on way in, so difficult to bring in enough bombs plant them and get away with it I'd say
Not so, for insurance purposes the building structure and fire resistance is inspected on a regular basis, carried out by specialists.
Also the building would be designed to minimise the effect of partial collapse ie. Every 4th or 5th floor reinforced to resist / arrest collapsing floors from above.
Pilots passport found in the rubble within hours of collapse, how lucky was that. 😉
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉
Not true, this isnt like a large chimney that is relatively top heavy with a rigid struture that will fall to one side. It an interconnected series of beams that rely on each other for support and consists mostly of air which the building falls into. Its structure resembles a matchstick tower.... see what happens one of those when one connection fails... thats right it all collapses straight down and pretty quickly too, tho not quite as fast as you reckon. I checked this out before with the two main towers, they collapsed fast but they didnt collapse at a free falling rate, the floors gave some resistance but the dynamic loading and weakened structure overcame any resistance very quickly and got faster the further it went down as the dynamic load exponentially increased as the speed of collapse increased.
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 10:07:10 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉
Not true, this isnt like a large chimney that is relatively top heavy with a rigid struture that will fall to one side. It an interconnected series of beams that rely on each other for support and consists mostly of air which the building falls into. Its structure resembles a matchstick tower.... see what happens one of those when one connection fails... thats right it all collapses straight down and pretty quickly too, tho not quite as fast as you reckon. I checked this out before with the two main towers, they collapsed fast but they didnt collapse at a free falling rate, the floors gave some resistance but the dynamic loading and weakened structure overcame any resistance very quickly and got faster the further it went down as the dynamic load exponentially increased as the speed of collapse increased.
Katie Price
Correct J70 this steel melting thing is pure BS.
Another thing I also forgot to mention is the Yield strength of steel, which is considered the real world failure point of steel. YS peaks at around 200°C and begins to fall sharply after this. Steel heated to 500°C will have a yield strength of roughly half that at room temperature. Which is another contributing factor it would have made the steel easier to buckle
The biggest question I would have is why did it take WTC7 so long to collapse. It took 9 hours? The peak of the fire would likely have been hours before. Tho perhaps when you think about since the fire was not as hot or as sudden as in the other two towers the steel would have expanded more slowly, not lost as much of its strength and the beam could have wedged itself in place with busted connections. However when it began to cool and contract again it would have become "unwedged" and subsequently with no connection to the other columns it would have fallen.
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 10:07:10 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉
Not true, this isnt like a large chimney that is relatively top heavy with a rigid struture that will fall to one side. It an interconnected series of beams that rely on each other for support and consists mostly of air which the building falls into. Its structure resembles a matchstick tower.... see what happens one of those when one connection fails... thats right it all collapses straight down and pretty quickly too, tho not quite as fast as you reckon. I checked this out before with the two main towers, they collapsed fast but they didnt collapse at a free falling rate, the floors gave some resistance but the dynamic loading and weakened structure overcame any resistance very quickly and got faster the further it went down as the dynamic load exponentially increased as the speed of collapse increased.
So you're saying all the beams and columns all failed uniformly 😂 Why do you think lumberjacks deliberately weaken one side of a tree trunk to influence the direction of collapse ?
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 09:50:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 29, 2016, 09:19:28 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 09:09:17 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 29, 2016, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉
Sources?
What is "practically nil"? Is that "impossible"? "Unlikely"? "Unusual"?
So "no structure underneath"-speed collapse is accomplished how? How fast should it have collapsed?
Very highly unlikely and Gravity is a constant.
Worked and taught engineering (metal work ) and there are many grades of steel and fire proof materials attached to the twin towers was proved to have been poor and in lots of places non existent !!
The building came down as already stated the floors just crashed down on top of each other and that was that I'd imagine under the towers the foundations sent tremors to other building causing them to collapse also, went up it the year it was first attempted to be blown up, when a bomb went off in the underground car park ... 93? I think plenty security at the building ever since, we were searched on way in, so difficult to bring in enough bombs plant them and get away with it I'd say
Not so, for insurance purposes the building structure and fire resistance is inspected on a regular basis, carried out by specialists.
Also the building would be designed to minimise the effect of partial collapse ie. Every 4th or 5th floor reinforced to resist / arrest collapsing floors from above.
Pilots passport found in the rubble within hours of collapse, how lucky was that. 😉
Listen these things get passed with a wink and and brown envelope a lot of times !! As for passports they found loads of items staplers from floor that plane flew into ffs!!
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 10:39:48 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 10:07:10 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉
Not true, this isnt like a large chimney that is relatively top heavy with a rigid struture that will fall to one side. It an interconnected series of beams that rely on each other for support and consists mostly of air which the building falls into. Its structure resembles a matchstick tower.... see what happens one of those when one connection fails... thats right it all collapses straight down and pretty quickly too, tho not quite as fast as you reckon. I checked this out before with the two main towers, they collapsed fast but they didnt collapse at a free falling rate, the floors gave some resistance but the dynamic loading and weakened structure overcame any resistance very quickly and got faster the further it went down as the dynamic load exponentially increased as the speed of collapse increased.
So you're saying all the beams and columns all failed uniformly 😂 Why do you think lumberjacks deliberately weaken one side of a tree trunk to influence the direction of collapse ?
Was it made of wood now? No wonder it collapsed
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 09:50:37 PM
Not so, for insurance purposes the building structure and fire resistance is inspected on a regular basis, carried out by specialists.
Also the building would be designed to minimise the effect of partial collapse ie. Every 4th or 5th floor reinforced to resist / arrest collapsing floors from above.
The water supply was cut off so sprinklers didnt work in WTC7 so it burned for hours. Fire proofing was knocked out of place by plane crash and explosion in the towers
The floors collapsing wasnt the problem it was their entire steel structure which provided their support collapsing causing the problem
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 10:39:48 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 10:07:10 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉
Not true, this isnt like a large chimney that is relatively top heavy with a rigid struture that will fall to one side. It an interconnected series of beams that rely on each other for support and consists mostly of air which the building falls into. Its structure resembles a matchstick tower.... see what happens one of those when one connection fails... thats right it all collapses straight down and pretty quickly too, tho not quite as fast as you reckon. I checked this out before with the two main towers, they collapsed fast but they didnt collapse at a free falling rate, the floors gave some resistance but the dynamic loading and weakened structure overcame any resistance very quickly and got faster the further it went down as the dynamic load exponentially increased as the speed of collapse increased.
So you're saying all the beams and columns all failed uniformly 😂 Why do you think lumberjacks deliberately weaken one side of a tree trunk to influence the direction of collapse ?
No I dont think they failed uniformly. As I mentioned before the steel beam and columns are interconnected, removing one puts extra pressure on another one and if you have a few more in close proximity with their connections and physical structure compromised then pretty soon its vertical dominoes for the whole structure.
The tree analogy would be similar to the chimney scenario I mentioned before.. sorry its irrelevant for a structure like this, think deck of cards or matchbox tower.
Try and picture my explanation in your head happening and it should become more obivious. Im not trying to have a go at you I want you to understand and would be happy to answer any questions on my explanation
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 10:48:26 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 09:50:37 PM
Not so, for insurance purposes the building structure and fire resistance is inspected on a regular basis, carried out by specialists.
Also the building would be designed to minimise the effect of partial collapse ie. Every 4th or 5th floor reinforced to resist / arrest collapsing floors from above.
The water supply was cut off so sprinklers didnt work in WTC7 so it burned for hours. Fire proofing was knocked out of place by plane crash and explosion in the towers
The floors collapsing wasnt the problem it was their entire steel structure which provided their support collapsing causing the problem
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 05:53:50 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 29, 2016, 04:50:22 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on September 29, 2016, 04:24:44 PM
Exactly balladmaker. Don't forget most of New York is built on shit ground (getting very technical) and the vibration alone would be enough to cause a collapse.
South Manhattan was a swamp originally.
Also under the WTC (below the waterline) there were a couple of subway lines and a station. Two giant towers collapsing into that would have created massive stress for everything nearby by. As for the fires, 2 767s with fuel for flights from the East coast to the West coast could he been the sources of the fires.
This is nothing to do with why it collapsed, dreaming up stuff that might be logical but ultimately only adds fuels to the "alternative theories"
In a way I admire your logical dexterity. And in another way I don't.
Speculating about the influence of two fuel-laden aircraft, crashing into two giant towers, which subsequently collapsed, is 'dreaming up stuff', but........ the failure of the sprinkler system, to cope with some (obviously unrelated) fire, the first fire in history to bring down a sky-scraper, is not.
Did Wiki explain the lack of water pressure in the sprinkler system? Any idea at all what could have caused that?
I would say a lot of US infrastructure may not have been built to the highest standards. Same as a lot of stuff in Dublin. Some cultures are not really attention to detail .
Trump used illegal Poliah labour in the late 70s for his Trump tower. A scêimear.
Quote from: muppet on September 30, 2016, 01:08:48 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 10:48:26 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 09:50:37 PM
Not so, for insurance purposes the building structure and fire resistance is inspected on a regular basis, carried out by specialists.
Also the building would be designed to minimise the effect of partial collapse ie. Every 4th or 5th floor reinforced to resist / arrest collapsing floors from above.
The water supply was cut off so sprinklers didnt work in WTC7 so it burned for hours. Fire proofing was knocked out of place by plane crash and explosion in the towers
The floors collapsing wasnt the problem it was their entire steel structure which provided their support collapsing causing the problem
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 05:53:50 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 29, 2016, 04:50:22 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on September 29, 2016, 04:24:44 PM
Exactly balladmaker. Don't forget most of New York is built on shit ground (getting very technical) and the vibration alone would be enough to cause a collapse.
South Manhattan was a swamp originally.
Also under the WTC (below the waterline) there were a couple of subway lines and a station. Two giant towers collapsing into that would have created massive stress for everything nearby by. As for the fires, 2 767s with fuel for flights from the East coast to the West coast could he been the sources of the fires.
This is nothing to do with why it collapsed, dreaming up stuff that might be logical but ultimately only adds fuels to the "alternative theories"
In a way I admire your logical dexterity. And in another way I don't.
Speculating about the influence of two fuel-laden aircraft, crashing into two giant towers, which subsequently collapsed, is 'dreaming up stuff', but........ the failure of the sprinkler system, to cope with some (obviously unrelated) fire, the first fire in history to bring down a sky-scraper, is not.
Did Wiki explain the lack of water pressure in the sprinkler system? Any idea at all what could have caused that?
Not entirely sure what your taking the hump about Muppet or what point your trying to make exactly?
The primary source of the structural failure of all the towers came from within ie the fire, not below.
Now if want you could argue that the fire was caused by the collapse of the other towers fair enough or the loss of water for the sprinklers fine. But dodgy foundations had nothing to do with it.
I didnt read anything on Wikipedia about it, just J70s link and a few other websites.
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 11:33:07 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 10:39:48 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 10:07:10 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉
Not true, this isnt like a large chimney that is relatively top heavy with a rigid struture that will fall to one side. It an interconnected series of beams that rely on each other for support and consists mostly of air which the building falls into. Its structure resembles a matchstick tower.... see what happens one of those when one connection fails... thats right it all collapses straight down and pretty quickly too, tho not quite as fast as you reckon. I checked this out before with the two main towers, they collapsed fast but they didnt collapse at a free falling rate, the floors gave some resistance but the dynamic loading and weakened structure overcame any resistance very quickly and got faster the further it went down as the dynamic load exponentially increased as the speed of collapse increased.
So you're saying all the beams and columns all failed uniformly 😂 Why do you think lumberjacks deliberately weaken one side of a tree trunk to influence the direction of collapse ?
No I dont think they failed uniformly. As I mentioned before the steel beam and columns are interconnected, removing one puts extra pressure on another one and if you have a few more in close proximity with their connections and physical structure compromised then pretty soon its vertical dominoes for the whole structure.
The tree analogy would be similar to the chimney scenario I mentioned before.. sorry its irrelevant for a structure like this, think deck of cards or matchbox tower.
Try and picture my explanation in your head happening and it should become more obivious. Im not trying to have a go at you I want you to understand and would be happy to answer any questions on my explanation
I know you're not having a go. But if a demolition company were to attempt to collapse the building straight down it would be done via sequenced , uniform removal of the structure. Matchbox tower and deck of cards don't have fixed connection points and shear studs in the floor construction. By the way only the top 14 stories on tower one had been affected by fire.
I just think there are more questions than answers.
And don't get me started on the Pentagon. 😂😂
I wish people had the same level of curiosity about the financial system
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 08:06:29 AM
I wish people had the same level of curiosity about the financial system
You've got it covered.
Quote from: stew on September 29, 2016, 03:02:48 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 29, 2016, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 29, 2016, 01:49:39 PM
Just use this (http://crispian-jago.blogspot.ie/2013/04/the-conspiracy-theory-flowchart-they.html).
;D
Saudi funded radical Muslim Jihadists flew planes into the towers and they collapsed as a result, there, sorted!
Yet the guns were turned on Afghanistan and not Riyadh?
Wonder why?
The PNAC was set up long before 911 and had plans to reshaope the Middle East for the benefit of Israel and American arms companies. Very Zionist. The stupidest f**king man on the planet, Doug Feith, was also a Zionist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
I also think war spending is the only form of deficit spending that was acceptable to Republicans at the time. Iraq cost 3 trillion which supported the US economy in a serious way when growth was otherwise low. The only downside obviously is dead soldiers and veteran suicides but the sociopaths who run the US do not care.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVUHalR8P0I
Iraq was sold as a piece of cake by an Israeli who you may be familiar with
"If you take out Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region... The task and the great opportunity and challenge is not merely to effect the ouster of the regime, but also to transform the region."
What an arsehole
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4529120/netanyahus-expert-testimony-iraq-2002
Another fellow traveller
www.youtube.com/embed/Z2MWNwfGNno
Omaghjoe has it just about bang on. The fuel in the aircraft while not the de-facto cause of the collapse would have contributed as it would have caused the fire to burn hotter and for longer, thereby undermining the steel structure more. The weight of a poured concrete floor collapsing onto the floor below should not have brought the building down on it's own but when the structural integrity of 5+ floors are compromised by both damage and fire, a collapse is not just possible, it's likely. Once one floor goes, at this stage, the collapse becomes self sustaining.
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 30, 2016, 07:20:22 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 11:33:07 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 10:39:48 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 10:07:10 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉
Not true, this isnt like a large chimney that is relatively top heavy with a rigid struture that will fall to one side. It an interconnected series of beams that rely on each other for support and consists mostly of air which the building falls into. Its structure resembles a matchstick tower.... see what happens one of those when one connection fails... thats right it all collapses straight down and pretty quickly too, tho not quite as fast as you reckon. I checked this out before with the two main towers, they collapsed fast but they didnt collapse at a free falling rate, the floors gave some resistance but the dynamic loading and weakened structure overcame any resistance very quickly and got faster the further it went down as the dynamic load exponentially increased as the speed of collapse increased.
So you're saying all the beams and columns all failed uniformly 😂 Why do you think lumberjacks deliberately weaken one side of a tree trunk to influence the direction of collapse ?
No I dont think they failed uniformly. As I mentioned before the steel beam and columns are interconnected, removing one puts extra pressure on another one and if you have a few more in close proximity with their connections and physical structure compromised then pretty soon its vertical dominoes for the whole structure.
The tree analogy would be similar to the chimney scenario I mentioned before.. sorry its irrelevant for a structure like this, think deck of cards or matchbox tower.
Try and picture my explanation in your head happening and it should become more obivious. Im not trying to have a go at you I want you to understand and would be happy to answer any questions on my explanation
I know you're not having a go. But if a demolition company were to attempt to collapse the building straight down it would be done via sequenced , uniform removal of the structure. Matchbox tower and deck of cards don't have fixed connection points and shear studs in the floor construction. By the way only the top 14 stories on tower one had been affected by fire.
I just think there are more questions than answers.
And don't get me started on the Pentagon. 😂😂
I know they dont have connections points thats why they fall so easy similarly the connection points in WT7 where busted to by the expanding steel as I mentioned earlier. And they arent carrying floors so they cant be connected to them. I was using the principal of their stucture as a reference, they are loaded in a similar fashion to skyscraper.
You should question everything and seek out answers for all theories as it helps you to decide
Now...Where was the bang for the demo explosion?
Quote from: Franko on September 30, 2016, 12:37:35 PM
Omaghjoe has it just about bang on. The fuel in the aircraft while not the de-facto cause of the collapse would have contributed as it would have caused the fire to burn hotter and for longer, thereby undermining the steel structure more. The weight of a poured concrete floor collapsing onto the floor below should not have brought the building down on it's own but when the structural integrity of 5+ floors are compromised by both damage and fire, a collapse is not just possible, it's likely. Once one floor goes, at this stage, the collapse becomes self sustaining.
Back in the 70s nobody imagined planes flying into buildings
911 changed the paradigm
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 03:52:05 AM
Quote from: muppet on September 30, 2016, 01:08:48 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 10:48:26 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 09:50:37 PM
Not so, for insurance purposes the building structure and fire resistance is inspected on a regular basis, carried out by specialists.
Also the building would be designed to minimise the effect of partial collapse ie. Every 4th or 5th floor reinforced to resist / arrest collapsing floors from above.
The water supply was cut off so sprinklers didnt work in WTC7 so it burned for hours. Fire proofing was knocked out of place by plane crash and explosion in the towers
The floors collapsing wasnt the problem it was their entire steel structure which provided their support collapsing causing the problem
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 05:53:50 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 29, 2016, 04:50:22 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on September 29, 2016, 04:24:44 PM
Exactly balladmaker. Don't forget most of New York is built on shit ground (getting very technical) and the vibration alone would be enough to cause a collapse.
South Manhattan was a swamp originally.
Also under the WTC (below the waterline) there were a couple of subway lines and a station. Two giant towers collapsing into that would have created massive stress for everything nearby by. As for the fires, 2 767s with fuel for flights from the East coast to the West coast could he been the sources of the fires.
This is nothing to do with why it collapsed, dreaming up stuff that might be logical but ultimately only adds fuels to the "alternative theories"
In a way I admire your logical dexterity. And in another way I don't.
Speculating about the influence of two fuel-laden aircraft, crashing into two giant towers, which subsequently collapsed, is 'dreaming up stuff', but........ the failure of the sprinkler system, to cope with some (obviously unrelated) fire, the first fire in history to bring down a sky-scraper, is not.
Did Wiki explain the lack of water pressure in the sprinkler system? Any idea at all what could have caused that?
Not entirely sure what your taking the hump about Muppet or what point your trying to make exactly?
The primary source of the structural failure of all the towers came from within ie the fire, not below.
Now if want you could argue that the fire was caused by the collapse of the other towers fair enough or the loss of water for the sprinklers fine. But dodgy foundations had nothing to do with it.
I didnt read anything on Wikipedia about it, just J70s link and a few other websites.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm)
From the link above:
'...whereas in WTC 7 the fires burned without being fought, and the key sprinklers on the lower floors did not have any water because the mains had been cut by the collapse of the Twin Towers...'Also:
'...Tower 7 was built over a subway and an electricity substation. There were only a few places where foundations could be put down and long beams were needed to take the weight of the building on the east side. The building had to be reinforced on the fifth to seventh floors, and also between the 22nd and 24th floors....'https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2008/08/nist-wtc-7-investigation-finds-building-fires-caused-collapse (https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2008/08/nist-wtc-7-investigation-finds-building-fires-caused-collapse)
'...The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories....'It looks like it was the fire that caused the failures. The fires don't appear to have been caused directly by the aircraft fuel, but were probably caused by debris (possibly some of it burning) falling from the Twin Towers, mainly during their collapse. The Twin Towers collapse crucially also took out water and electric mains supply. This allowed the fires to burn unchecked. The WTC7 collapse was no doubt aided by the design, which had to take into account the subway underneath.
Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 09:12:40 PM
Quote from: Franko on September 30, 2016, 12:37:35 PM
Omaghjoe has it just about bang on. The fuel in the aircraft while not the de-facto cause of the collapse would have contributed as it would have caused the fire to burn hotter and for longer, thereby undermining the steel structure more. The weight of a poured concrete floor collapsing onto the floor below should not have brought the building down on it's own but when the structural integrity of 5+ floors are compromised by both damage and fire, a collapse is not just possible, it's likely. Once one floor goes, at this stage, the collapse becomes self sustaining.
Back in the 70s nobody imagined planes flying into buildings
911 changed the paradigm
1945
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CodLDGhTe0k
https://www.facebook.com/AwarenessAct/videos/1428558230492043/
The names, dates and those involved behind the September 11Th false flag attacks are presented here. Well worth a watch it breaks down everything in detail. How it was planned and executed.
https://youtu.be/kyLyGXQUIo0
Quote from: Íseal agus crua isteach a on October 14, 2016, 05:11:55 PM
The names, dates and those involved behind the September 11Th false flag attacks are presented here. Well worth a watch it breaks down everything in detail. How it was planned and executed.
https://youtu.be/kyLyGXQUIo0
I assume he blames the Jews.
Quote from: dec on October 14, 2016, 05:27:05 PM
Quote from: Íseal agus crua isteach a on October 14, 2016, 05:11:55 PM
The names, dates and those involved behind the September 11Th false flag attacks are presented here. Well worth a watch it breaks down everything in detail. How it was planned and executed.
https://youtu.be/kyLyGXQUIo0
I assume he blames the Jews.
Why would a known holocaust denier do that?
easier fooled than persuade a person that he is fooled
I feel for normal Americans because they have so much pride in their country, a wonderful country that deserves to be run by its people.
Please watch the video and tell me there is no connection with Israel. The evidence is there but sure the BBC and CNN tell us different. Murdochs cronies where caught red handed with the taping the phones scandal and how many did time or was convicted??????????????
Exactly that. Wesley Clark told the truth on Democracy now with Amy Goodman. Seven Countries!!
https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw
17 years!!!
Gemma O'Doherty and her supporters know THE TRUTH!
Why the fûck is there a 9/11 truther thread on this board.
(https://nearlylivenews.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/jim-corr.jpg?w=479)
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....
Ok fella, I think the assertion that you get the death penalty for removing evidence from a crime scene may be an indicator that the plot has officially been lost...
And
Why all the fuss?
More Americans died as a result of hurricane Maria that at the WTC
Trump calls this a great success, hopefully Florence is somewaht less succesful
The aluminium alloys from the plane wreckage once melted could have caused the 'explosions' people heard.. the experiment with the fire in an office with steel to check how long it would take for the metal girders to buckle showed that it would have taken up to ten hours with the flame resistance material on the beam and 13 minutes without it on, none of the experiments were carried out with 30 tons of molten aluminium alloys in it!
As for the other buildings collapsing the foundations around the WTC would have been very unstable, it's not inconceivable that it could have been a factor, it's a better idea than controlled explosions to be fair..
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.
I'm as big a conspiracy theorist as the next man but the reality is we don't know what happened. Could it have been an inside job....CIA back etc etc? Of course it could have been. What the recent years in NI shows is that for years there have been dirty wars fought and maintained for many reasons. There is an open dirty war being fought at the minute over Brexit in my eyes. The thing is the only way we will ever know is when the participants start to die off. If you think too much about it all your brain will fly under your tin foil hat so no point anymore!
WT7 was brought down by one of Saddam's WMD's fired from the grassy knoll by remote control from a cave in Tora Bora.
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
Can anyone explain to me why there was some shady conspiracy to demolish Building 7, such an anonymous piece of real estate that it didn't even have a name.
In fact can anyone explain why there would be the need to demolish the 2 WTC Towers?
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.
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....
Why can the CIA not hire people as clever as you to plan their cover-ups. Then they would not be caught so easily.
Thanks trailer
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on September 12, 2018, 10:34:10 AM
I'm as big a conspiracy theorist as the next man but the reality is we don't know what happened. Could it have been an inside job....CIA back etc etc? Of course it could have been. What the recent years in NI shows is that for years there have been dirty wars fought and maintained for many reasons. There is an open dirty war being fought at the minute over Brexit in my eyes. The thing is the only way we will ever know is when the participants start to die off. If you think too much about it all your brain will fly under your tin foil hat so no point anymore!
Exactly. What the Brits got up to here in the North shows us what all governments are capable of. Nothing is impossible.
Quote from: BennyCake on September 12, 2018, 01:58:35 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on September 12, 2018, 10:34:10 AM
I'm as big a conspiracy theorist as the next man but the reality is we don't know what happened. Could it have been an inside job....CIA back etc etc? Of course it could have been. What the recent years in NI shows is that for years there have been dirty wars fought and maintained for many reasons. There is an open dirty war being fought at the minute over Brexit in my eyes. The thing is the only way we will ever know is when the participants start to die off. If you think too much about it all your brain will fly under your tin foil hat so no point anymore!
Exactly. What the Brits got up to here in the North shows us what all governments are capable of. Nothing is impossible.
So when the CIA commander told his team that their next mission would involve wiping out several thousand of their fellow citizens, laying waste to several acres of downtown Manhattan, every one of them were fine with that?
None of them backed out. None of them was worried that a friend or relation might be a potential casualty.
17 years later, none of them has had a change of heart, or a pang of conscience and come clean?
Most secret services and security forces are capable of ballsing up even the most basic of missions. Yet this one still stands apart as a watertight success.
Imagine the fall out if they were ever twigged?
Like seriously...
Amazing too how people who believe the conspiracy theories about September 11th tend to believe in a raft of other similar conspiracy theories.
Amazing.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on September 12, 2018, 04:26:13 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 12, 2018, 01:58:35 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on September 12, 2018, 10:34:10 AM
I'm as big a conspiracy theorist as the next man but the reality is we don't know what happened. Could it have been an inside job....CIA back etc etc? Of course it could have been. What the recent years in NI shows is that for years there have been dirty wars fought and maintained for many reasons. There is an open dirty war being fought at the minute over Brexit in my eyes. The thing is the only way we will ever know is when the participants start to die off. If you think too much about it all your brain will fly under your tin foil hat so no point anymore!
Exactly. What the Brits got up to here in the North shows us what all governments are capable of. Nothing is impossible.
So when the CIA commander told his team that their next mission would involve wiping out several thousand of their fellow citizens, laying waste to several acres of downtown Manhattan, every one of them were fine with that?
None of them backed out. None of them was worried that a friend or relation might be a potential casualty.
17 years later, none of them has had a change of heart, or a pang of conscience and come clean?
Most secret services and security forces are capable of ballsing up even the most basic of missions. Yet this one still stands apart as a watertight success.
Imagine the fall out if they were ever twigged?
Like seriously...
We'll, nobody knows how an event like that is planned. A few in the know etc, who knows really. Did all members of the republicans/loyalists paramilitaries know when an attack was being planned? Of course not. All I'm saying is, it's not beyond the realms if possibilities that a government and their intelligence services couldn't concoct an act against their own people.
As for people's conscience, speaking out etc, have you not heard about the chinook crash in Kintyre? A load of head honchos going down in the one chopper? Or the swat team that "took out Bin Laden" all perishing in the same way? Like I say, anything is possible.
So whats the latest on this?
Is it that the whole attack was staged by the CIA or is just the WT-7?
Well considering that 15/19 of the hi jackers were Saudi nationals and all flights were grounded..........
except for those flying Saudi big wigs and their families out of the country 😳😳
Then they export arms to the Saudis in the 100's of billions😳😳
Nothing to see here......move along now.....
Quote from: BennyCake on September 12, 2018, 05:07:03 PM
As for people's conscience, speaking out etc, have you not heard about the chinook crash in Kintyre? A load of head honchos going down in the one chopper? Or the swat team that "took out Bin Laden" all perishing in the same way? Like I say, anything is possible.
None of the SEAL Team 6 members that killed bin Laden died in the Chinook helicopter that was shot down. You should stop reading bullshit conspiracy loon websites.
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 07:10:57 PM
Well considering that 15/19 of the hi jackers were Saudi nationals and all flights were grounded..........
except for those flying Saudi big wigs and their families out of the country 😳😳
The flight that took the bin Laden relatives out of the country took place after US airspace was reopened
Quote from: dec on September 12, 2018, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 07:10:57 PM
Well considering that 15/19 of the hi jackers were Saudi nationals and all flights were grounded..........
except for those flying Saudi big wigs and their families out of the country 😳😳
The flight that took the bin Laden relatives out of the country took place after US airspace was reopened
Sure it did😳
http://www.wesjones.com/saudi1.htm
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 07:43:57 PM
Quote from: dec on September 12, 2018, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 07:10:57 PM
Well considering that 15/19 of the hi jackers were Saudi nationals and all flights were grounded..........
except for those flying Saudi big wigs and their families out of the country 😳😳
The flight that took the bin Laden relatives out of the country took place after US airspace was reopened
Sure it did😳
http://www.wesjones.com/saudi1.htm
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/flights-of-fancy/
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 12, 2018, 06:35:31 PM
So whats the latest on this?
Is it that the whole attack was staged by the CIA or is just the WT-7?
The main attack was genuine.
Then the CIA met with Mossad and within a few hours they had cooked up and flawlessly executed a conspiracy to pointlessly implode the other building.
I think that's what happened, anyway.
Quote from: dec on September 12, 2018, 08:01:42 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 07:43:57 PM
Quote from: dec on September 12, 2018, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 07:10:57 PM
Well considering that 15/19 of the hi jackers were Saudi nationals and all flights were grounded..........
except for those flying Saudi big wigs and their families out of the country 😳😳
The flight that took the bin Laden relatives out of the country took place after US airspace was reopened
Sure it did😳
http://www.wesjones.com/saudi1.htm
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/flights-of-fancy/
Rest assured the flights took place......at the time I worked for a member of the Al Saud family and met him at Riyadh airport.
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 08:48:34 PM
Quote from: dec on September 12, 2018, 08:01:42 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 07:43:57 PM
Quote from: dec on September 12, 2018, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 07:10:57 PM
Well considering that 15/19 of the hi jackers were Saudi nationals and all flights were grounded..........
except for those flying Saudi big wigs and their families out of the country 😳😳
The flight that took the bin Laden relatives out of the country took place after US airspace was reopened
Sure it did😳
http://www.wesjones.com/saudi1.htm
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/flights-of-fancy/
Rest assured the flights took place......at the time I worked for a member of the Al Saud family and met him at Riyadh airport.
Course you did 8)
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 08:48:34 PM
Quote from: dec on September 12, 2018, 08:01:42 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 07:43:57 PM
Quote from: dec on September 12, 2018, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 07:10:57 PM
Well considering that 15/19 of the hi jackers were Saudi nationals and all flights were grounded..........
except for those flying Saudi big wigs and their families out of the country 😳😳
The flight that took the bin Laden relatives out of the country took place after US airspace was reopened
Sure it did😳
http://www.wesjones.com/saudi1.htm
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/flights-of-fancy/
Rest assured the flights took place......at the time I worked for a member of the Al Saud family and met him at Riyadh airport.
When?
Friday 14th....having flown via Jeddah
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 09:05:04 PM
Friday 14th....having flown via Jeddah
So after US airspace reopened.
CIA Agent Confesses on Deathbed: 'We Blew Up WTC7 on 9/11' - FALSE
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cia-agent-confesses-wtc7/
European Scientific Journal Concluded 9/11 Was a Controlled Demolition - FALSE
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 12, 2018, 09:32:41 PM
CIA Agent Confesses on Deathbed: 'We Blew Up WTC7 on 9/11' - FALSE
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cia-agent-confesses-wtc7/
European Scientific Journal Concluded 9/11 Was a Controlled Demolition - FALSE
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/
https://yournewswire.com/snopes-cia-operation/
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 09:40:49 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 12, 2018, 09:32:41 PM
CIA Agent Confesses on Deathbed: 'We Blew Up WTC7 on 9/11' - FALSE
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cia-agent-confesses-wtc7/
European Scientific Journal Concluded 9/11 Was a Controlled Demolition - FALSE
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/
https://yournewswire.com/snopes-cia-operation/
another fine source of conspiracy loon bullshit
https://yournewswire.com/ariana-grande-false-flag/
Anyone know if there's a snopes equivalent that calls out snopes' conclusions? I'm trying to stay one smug step ahead of everyone else.
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 09:40:49 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 12, 2018, 09:32:41 PM
CIA Agent Confesses on Deathbed: 'We Blew Up WTC7 on 9/11' - FALSE
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cia-agent-confesses-wtc7/
European Scientific Journal Concluded 9/11 Was a Controlled Demolition - FALSE
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/
https://yournewswire.com/snopes-cia-operation/
Jesus wept. Do you believe in alien abduction too?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 12, 2018, 11:55:06 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 09:40:49 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 12, 2018, 09:32:41 PM
CIA Agent Confesses on Deathbed: 'We Blew Up WTC7 on 9/11' - FALSE
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cia-agent-confesses-wtc7/
European Scientific Journal Concluded 9/11 Was a Controlled Demolition - FALSE
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/
https://yournewswire.com/snopes-cia-operation/
Jesus wept. Do you believe in alien abduction too?
There is also some good anti vaxxer stuff there as well. And pizzagate.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 12, 2018, 11:55:06 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 09:40:49 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 12, 2018, 09:32:41 PM
CIA Agent Confesses on Deathbed: 'We Blew Up WTC7 on 9/11' - FALSE
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cia-agent-confesses-wtc7/
European Scientific Journal Concluded 9/11 Was a Controlled Demolition - FALSE
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/
https://yournewswire.com/snopes-cia-operation/
Jesus wept. Do you believe in alien abduction too?
😂😂 Snopes=yournewswire
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on September 12, 2018, 11:25:55 PM
It's good to keep an open mind about lots of things.
It's not so good however to keep your mind open so much that your brain falls out.
;D ;D ;D Brilliant
This thread proves that there are some very scary people in the world. I do wonder how some posters function on a day to day basis. Scary biscuits.
Quote from: trailer on September 13, 2018, 10:00:44 AM
This thread proves that there are some very scary people in the world. I do wonder how some posters function on a day to day basis. Scary biscuits.
Dont agree Trailer - would you say the same to people that do/dont have faith in a God?
It takes all sorts to make the world go round and indeed to challenge what is said by the powers that be.
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.
Quote from: Taylor on September 13, 2018, 10:52:44 AM
Quote from: trailer on September 13, 2018, 10:00:44 AM
This thread proves that there are some very scary people in the world. I do wonder how some posters function on a day to day basis. Scary biscuits.
Dont agree Trailer - would you say the same to people that do/dont have faith in a God?
It takes all sorts to make the world go round and indeed to challenge what is said by the powers that be.
True, but it's important to have someone to set you straight in case you lose the run of yourself.
Quote from: Taylor on September 13, 2018, 10:52:44 AM
Quote from: trailer on September 13, 2018, 10:00:44 AM
This thread proves that there are some very scary people in the world. I do wonder how some posters function on a day to day basis. Scary biscuits.
Dont agree Trailer - would you say the same to people that do/dont have faith in a God?
It takes all sorts to make the world go round and indeed to challenge what is said by the powers that be.
Jumping from the American government / CIA / Whatever, carried out the 9/11 attacks to British State Collusion then to God is some leap.
Quote from: Taylor on September 13, 2018, 10:52:44 AM
Quote from: trailer on September 13, 2018, 10:00:44 AM
This thread proves that there are some very scary people in the world. I do wonder how some posters function on a day to day basis. Scary biscuits.
Dont agree Trailer - would you say the same to people that do/dont have faith in a God?
It takes all sorts to make the world go round and indeed to challenge what is said by the powers that be.
I function very well Trailer, thanks for your concern
I would question your functionability considering the level of arrogance involved in some of your quotes.
As mentioned above, even Willie can be right sometimes !!
Quote from: Dire Ear on September 13, 2018, 11:07:55 AM
Quote from: Taylor on September 13, 2018, 10:52:44 AM
Quote from: trailer on September 13, 2018, 10:00:44 AM
This thread proves that there are some very scary people in the world. I do wonder how some posters function on a day to day basis. Scary biscuits.
Dont agree Trailer - would you say the same to people that do/dont have faith in a God?
It takes all sorts to make the world go round and indeed to challenge what is said by the powers that be.
I function very well Trailer, thanks for your concern
I would question your functionability considering the level of arrogance involved in some of your quotes.
As mentioned above, even Willie can be right sometimes !!
I can't imagine living life believing in these types of conspiracies. The people in these jobs are ordinary people. They aren't some world order that controls everything. Christ politicians have to be elected. Many cabinet ministers have lost their jobs by not being reelected. You'd think they'd be able to control something simple like an election if they were running the world? No?
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.
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>
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.skeptic.com/)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/)
https://skeptoid.com/ (https://skeptoid.com/)
https://www.snopes.com/ (https://www.snopes.com/)
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.skeptic.com/)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/)
https://skeptoid.com/ (https://skeptoid.com/)
https://www.snopes.com/ (https://www.snopes.com/)
Careful Hardy, you'll be accused of being arrogant.
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.skeptic.com/)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/)
https://skeptoid.com/ (https://skeptoid.com/)
https://www.snopes.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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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 (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?
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.skeptic.com/)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/)
https://skeptoid.com/ (https://skeptoid.com/)
https://www.snopes.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?
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.
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.
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.
Translation - there are no outlandish conspiracy theories that have ever turned out to be proven true, but here's the time the British colluded and if you argue against this as a conspiracy theory you're siding with them.
I was really hoping for something like the Illuminate rigging the All Stars in 1984.
Quote from: trailer on September 13, 2018, 03:23:36 PM
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.
Translation - there are no outlandish conspiracy theories that have ever turned out to be proven true, but here's the time the British colluded and if you argue against this as a conspiracy theory you're siding with them.
I was really hoping for something like the Illuminate rigging the All Stars in 1984.
Define "proven to be true". I mean, are you waiting for CNN to report that the Bush administration carried out 9/11 or the CIA shot JFK? Or the BBC to report that the Brits colluded with loyalists to murder Pat Finucane or Miami show band?
They'll never admit such things, meaning theyll always be classed as conspiracy theories. And because they're still looked upon as conspiracy theiries, you're a nutjob if you believe them.
The mainstream media tell us what is a conspiracy theory is and what's not. Anything they don't want you to know the truth about, is a conspiracy/fake news.
Quote from: BennyCake on September 13, 2018, 03:54:57 PM
Quote from: trailer on September 13, 2018, 03:23:36 PM
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.
Translation - there are no outlandish conspiracy theories that have ever turned out to be proven true, but here's the time the British colluded and if you argue against this as a conspiracy theory you're siding with them.
I was really hoping for something like the Illuminate rigging the All Stars in 1984.
Define "proven to be true". I mean, are you waiting for CNN to report that the Bush administration carried out 9/11 or the CIA shot JFK? Or the BBC to report that the Brits colluded with loyalists to murder Pat Finucane or Miami show band?
They'll never admit such things, meaning theyll always be classed as conspiracy theories. And because they're still looked upon as conspiracy theiries, you're a nutjob if you believe them.
The mainstream media tell us what is a conspiracy theory is and what's not. Anything they don't want you to know the truth about, is a conspiracy/fake news.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/9747132/Finucane-Who-knew-of-this-deniable-murder.html
"Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister told Parliament that the extent of state collusion in Finucane's murder, was "shocking"."
Quote from: trailer on September 13, 2018, 03:23:36 PM
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.
Translation - there are no outlandish conspiracy theories that have ever turned out to be proven true, but here's the time the British colluded and if you argue against this as a conspiracy theory you're siding with them.
I was really hoping for something like the Illuminate rigging the All Stars in 1984.
Trailer, are you actually denying that collusion was once regarded as a conspiracy theory and republican propaganda?
Quote from: BennyCake on September 13, 2018, 03:54:57 PM
Quote from: trailer on September 13, 2018, 03:23:36 PM
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.
Translation - there are no outlandish conspiracy theories that have ever turned out to be proven true, but here's the time the British colluded and if you argue against this as a conspiracy theory you're siding with them.
I was really hoping for something like the Illuminate rigging the All Stars in 1984.
Define "proven to be true". I mean, are you waiting for CNN to report that the Bush administration carried out 9/11 or the CIA shot JFK? Or the BBC to report that the Brits colluded with loyalists to murder Pat Finucane or Miami show band?
They'll never admit such things, meaning theyll always be classed as conspiracy theories. And because they're still looked upon as conspiracy theiries, you're a nutjob if you believe them.
The mainstream media tell us what is a conspiracy theory is and what's not. Anything they don't want you to know the truth about, is a conspiracy/fake news.
Finally, something I can agree with.
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on September 13, 2018, 02:36:28 PM
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 (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?
Yes - a REAL conspiracy. What is your point?
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 13, 2018, 02:37:48 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.skeptic.com/)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/)
https://skeptoid.com/ (https://skeptoid.com/)
https://www.snopes.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?
They appear credible to me because I'm not aware of any instance where they misled, knowingly or otherwise. On the other hand, all (that I know of) of the myths and falsehoods they have debunked have been either deliberate attempts to mislead or misapprehensions of reality. That gives them a pretty high score on my credibility meter by comparison to conspiracy crackpots.
Thanks Hardy.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/29-pages-revealed-corrupt_b_11033068.html?guccounter=1
https://nypost.com/2016/07/15/yes-the-saudi-government-helped-the-911-terrorists/
I'm going to ask what is for me a very obvious question.......why did America not go to war with Saudi Arabia?
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 13, 2018, 04:57:54 PM
Thanks Hardy.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/29-pages-revealed-corrupt_b_11033068.html?guccounter=1
https://nypost.com/2016/07/15/yes-the-saudi-government-helped-the-911-terrorists/
I'm going to ask what is for me a very obvious question.......why did America not go to war with Saudi Arabia?
Oil
Quote from: Hardy on September 13, 2018, 04:32:17 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on September 13, 2018, 02:36:28 PM
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 (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?
Yes - a REAL conspiracy. What is your point?
Simply that the claim that a democratically elected government would knowingly lead its people into war under false premises is/has been regarded as a conspiracy theory. So they're examples of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.
Quote from: dec on September 13, 2018, 05:14:53 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 13, 2018, 04:57:54 PM
Thanks Hardy.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/29-pages-revealed-corrupt_b_11033068.html?guccounter=1
https://nypost.com/2016/07/15/yes-the-saudi-government-helped-the-911-terrorists/
I'm going to ask what is for me a very obvious question.......why did America not go to war with Saudi Arabia?
Oil
American values indeed😳 Follow the money.
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on September 13, 2018, 05:18:39 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 13, 2018, 04:32:17 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on September 13, 2018, 02:36:28 PM
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 (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?
Yes - a REAL conspiracy. What is your point?
Simply that the claim that a democratically elected government would knowingly lead its people into war under false premises is/has been regarded as a conspiracy theory. So they're examples of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.
To be regarded as a conspiracy theory, does the quality of the supporting evidence not matter?
I've never heard anyone saying that the contemporary claims that the Bush administration, with the assistance of the Blair government, was cooking the books/data to garner support in the run-up to the Iraq War, amounted to a conspiracy theory.
Maybe Bush and Blair were too nakedly fraudulent?
stew, god bless him (whatever happened to him?) used to roll out the Hillary conspiracy theories all the time, often to do with her murdering people, without a shred of supporting evidence.
To me, a conspiracy theory is where someone posits some outlandish explanation for something without offering any evidence beyond some poorly thought-through/half-baked, paranoid nonsense.
Christ, I remember someone on the board here, back in the day, claiming that the presence of a perfectly standard undercarriage structure on one of the WTC planes was some kind of attached munitions.
Quote from: J70 on September 13, 2018, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on September 13, 2018, 05:18:39 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 13, 2018, 04:32:17 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on September 13, 2018, 02:36:28 PM
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 (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?
Yes - a REAL conspiracy. What is your point?
Simply that the claim that a democratically elected government would knowingly lead its people into war under false premises is/has been regarded as a conspiracy theory. So they're examples of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.
To be regarded as a conspiracy theory, does the quality of the supporting evidence not matter?
I've never heard anyone saying that the contemporary claims that the Bush administration, with the assistance of the Blair government, was cooking the books/data to garner support in the run-up to the Iraq War, amounted to a conspiracy theory.
Maybe Bush and Blair were too nakedly fraudulent?
stew, god bless him (whatever happened to him?) used to roll out the Hillary conspiracy theories all the time, often to do with her murdering people, without a shred of supporting evidence.
To me, a conspiracy theory is where someone posits some outlandish explanation for something without offering any evidence beyond some poorly thought-through/half-baked, paranoid nonsense.
Fair enough. Given that definition, I don't know of any ones that have turned out to be true. But I wonder if everyone is working with something like your definition.
If I told a group of people right now that the Gulf war was sold to the American people by a PR company who showcased a woman who claimed to have seen Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait shut off incubators containing babies, and that woman turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US, and that her story was entirely made up, I would be fairly sure some would dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on September 13, 2018, 05:39:30 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 13, 2018, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on September 13, 2018, 05:18:39 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 13, 2018, 04:32:17 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on September 13, 2018, 02:36:28 PM
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 (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?
Yes - a REAL conspiracy. What is your point?
Simply that the claim that a democratically elected government would knowingly lead its people into war under false premises is/has been regarded as a conspiracy theory. So they're examples of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.
To be regarded as a conspiracy theory, does the quality of the supporting evidence not matter?
I've never heard anyone saying that the contemporary claims that the Bush administration, with the assistance of the Blair government, was cooking the books/data to garner support in the run-up to the Iraq War, amounted to a conspiracy theory.
Maybe Bush and Blair were too nakedly fraudulent?
stew, god bless him (whatever happened to him?) used to roll out the Hillary conspiracy theories all the time, often to do with her murdering people, without a shred of supporting evidence.
To me, a conspiracy theory is where someone posits some outlandish explanation for something without offering any evidence beyond some poorly thought-through/half-baked, paranoid nonsense.
Fair enough. Given that definition, I don't know of any ones that have turned out to be true. But I wonder if everyone is working with something like your definition.
If I told a group of people right now that the Gulf war was sold to the American people by a PR company who showcased a woman who claimed to have seen Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait shut off incubators containing babies, and that woman turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US, and that her story was entirely made up, I would be fairly sure some would dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.
Is the conspiracy surrounding the WTC in 2001 also related to the motivation for the first Gulf War 10 years previous?
Which is easier?
A - Sneaking into a building and destroying any inconvenient documents that you want destroyed.
B - Sneaking into a building, without anyone noticing, planting enough explosives to demolish the building without anyone noticing as they go about their work, and then waiting for an unforseen terrorist attack a few blocks away before you press the detonator in order to destroy the building containing the documents that you want to destroy (even though paper has a good chance of surviving such a demolition).
Which is more likely?
1 - US government agencies secretly trained some Saudi nationals to hijack and fly planes so that they could kill over 2,000 people and plunge the US into a crisis for some unfathomable reason.
2 - Osama Bin Laden spotted a weakness in the US air travel system, and got his people to hijack and fly planes so that they could kill over 2,000 people and plunge the US into a crisis since that's the sort of thing terrorists do when given half a chance.
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....
Building 7 was hit by debris from the collapse of the north tower and the cause of its collapse is well documented and understood.
Your crazy description makes it sound like even commanders in the NY fire department were in on the conspiracy. It'd be easier for you tinfoil hat-wearing people to list who you think is not involved.
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 13, 2018, 07:13:36 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on September 13, 2018, 05:39:30 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 13, 2018, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on September 13, 2018, 05:18:39 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 13, 2018, 04:32:17 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on September 13, 2018, 02:36:28 PM
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 (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?
Yes - a REAL conspiracy. What is your point?
Simply that the claim that a democratically elected government would knowingly lead its people into war under false premises is/has been regarded as a conspiracy theory. So they're examples of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.
To be regarded as a conspiracy theory, does the quality of the supporting evidence not matter?
I've never heard anyone saying that the contemporary claims that the Bush administration, with the assistance of the Blair government, was cooking the books/data to garner support in the run-up to the Iraq War, amounted to a conspiracy theory.
Maybe Bush and Blair were too nakedly fraudulent?
stew, god bless him (whatever happened to him?) used to roll out the Hillary conspiracy theories all the time, often to do with her murdering people, without a shred of supporting evidence.
To me, a conspiracy theory is where someone posits some outlandish explanation for something without offering any evidence beyond some poorly thought-through/half-baked, paranoid nonsense.
Fair enough. Given that definition, I don't know of any ones that have turned out to be true. But I wonder if everyone is working with something like your definition.
If I told a group of people right now that the Gulf war was sold to the American people by a PR company who showcased a woman who claimed to have seen Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait shut off incubators containing babies, and that woman turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US, and that her story was entirely made up, I would be fairly sure some would dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.
Is the conspiracy surrounding the WTC in 2001 also related to the motivation for the first Gulf War 10 years previous?
I wouldn't think so. The conspiracy about the first gulf war is established fact. I don't see any evidence for the WTC conspiracy.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 13, 2018, 07:22:59 PM
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....
Building 7 was hit by debris from the collapse of the north tower and the cause of its collapse is well documented and understood.
Your crazy description makes it sound like even commanders in the NY fire department were in on the conspiracy. It'd be easier for you tinfoil hat-wearing people to list who you think is not involved.
Debris, eh? Fires, eh?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cK2TTl6LAnk
(https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cK2TTl6LAnk)
Quote from: BennyCake on September 14, 2018, 01:30:20 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 13, 2018, 07:22:59 PM
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....
Building 7 was hit by debris from the collapse of the north tower and the cause of its collapse is well documented and understood.
Your crazy description makes it sound like even commanders in the NY fire department were in on the conspiracy. It'd be easier for you tinfoil hat-wearing people to list who you think is not involved.
Debris, eh? Fires, eh?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cK2TTl6LAnk
(https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cK2TTl6LAnk)
The guy who made the fake video explains how he did it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8VAsoVuShM
Bennycake you should change your first name to Fruit. ;D
A building doesn't fall into it's own footprint unless it's been wired with explosives.
Quote from: BennyCake on September 14, 2018, 03:04:59 PM
A building doesn't fall into it's own footprint unless it's been wired with explosives.
What about Primark in Belfast? Suppose it was wired with explosives?
Quote from: BennyCake on September 14, 2018, 03:04:59 PM
A building doesn't fall into it's own footprint unless it's been wired with explosives.
The towers didn't collapse in their own footprint
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/contrailscience.com_skitch_MILITARY_RECON_20130303_153425.jpg)
Quote from: BennyCake on September 14, 2018, 03:04:59 PM
A building doesn't fall into it's own footprint unless it's been wired with explosives.
Que?? ???
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/qy52ee506a.jpg)
In other news, an iceberg didn't sink the Titanic. When was the last time you were able to put a dent in a steel plate using an ice cube from your freezer?
Quote from: Keyser soze on September 14, 2018, 02:26:13 PM
Bennycake you should change your first name to Fruit. ;D
Good work there sir.
A long but very worthwhile read
9/11 Revisited: Declassified FBI Files Reveal New Details About 'The Five Israelis'
Editor's Note: The story of the Dancing Israelis remains one of the most controversial and explosive untold stories of Sept. 11, 2001. Previous efforts to analyze this aspect of 9/11 have been mostly emotive OpEds and conspiratorial rants – until now. Writer Greg Fernandez presents some new declassified FBI material as part of a newly compiled and highly detailed account of this chilling chapter in the 21st century's most iconic event
https://21stcenturywire.com/2015/09/11/911-revisited-declassified-fbi-files-reveal-new-details-about-the-five-israelis/
Some other links
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStJ5BgadPs
I can understand this article as not long after I returned in '06 from backpacking in South America, and having encountered many Israelis, I had a knock on my door in Dungannon from an Israeli selling art pieces. When I asked my neighbours if they had been approached, they said no.
https://www.salon.com/2002/05/07/students/
Asked tonight what the attack meant for relations between the United States and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, replied, ''It's very good.'' Then he edited himself: ''Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.'' He predicted that the attack would ''strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we've experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror.''
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/us/day-terror-israelis-spilled-blood-seen-bond-that-draws-2-nations-closer.html
Quote from: give her dixie on September 14, 2018, 11:38:35 PM
https://21stcenturywire.com/2015/09/11/911-revisited-declassified-fbi-files-reveal-new-details-about-the-five-israelis/
I googled that site for the craic. I shouldn't have bothered.
Quote from: sid waddell on September 15, 2018, 12:16:10 AM
Quote from: give her dixie on September 14, 2018, 11:38:35 PM
https://21stcenturywire.com/2015/09/11/911-revisited-declassified-fbi-files-reveal-new-details-about-the-five-israelis/
I googled that site for the craic. I shouldn't have bothered.
Did you dismiss the article in full based on googling "that site for the craic"?
A couple of other links for you reporting on the same news
https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1
https://www.haaretz.com/1.5396918
If the "five dancing Israelis" story a variation on the debunked "4,000 Israelis stayed home from work at the World Trade Center on 9/11" bullshit?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/absent-without-leave-2/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/absent-without-leave-2/)
Quote from: give her dixie on September 15, 2018, 01:06:45 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on September 15, 2018, 12:16:10 AM
Quote from: give her dixie on September 14, 2018, 11:38:35 PM
https://21stcenturywire.com/2015/09/11/911-revisited-declassified-fbi-files-reveal-new-details-about-the-five-israelis/
I googled that site for the craic. I shouldn't have bothered.
Did you dismiss the article in full based on googling "that site for the craic"?
A couple of other links for you reporting on the same news
https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1
https://www.haaretz.com/1.5396918
Yes, I did, actually, because it's nothing more than a propaganda site.
Can you scientifically prove that the official story is any way factual (TRUE)? Is there any body of science that supports the official story what so ever? Or do you just blissfully believe what ever the Corporate talking Head tells you to believe in the TV Box? According to the Fox News Fairy Tale Channel, no one in the United States was capable of doing such a bad things to other Americans. Because, Ex-Military personnel can't be hired to do such a things. Right? They have no price high enough to kill other Americans, Right? Nope, it had to be Scary Super-Smart Brown Islamic Boogeymen living in caves in Afghanistan. oops I mean Iraq who hate America for their freedoms. Yeah, that works. That's so much easier to believe. Scary Super-Smart Brown Islamic Boogeymen who out smarted the United States 15 Trillion Dollar Dept of Defense, and Counter Intelligence apparatus. And that was with the George Bush Presidential Daily Briefing - PDB. I guess the copious amounts of Thermite & Nano Thermate is also a figment of our collective imaginations too?
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 16, 2018, 06:04:02 AM
Can you scientifically prove that the official story is any way factual (TRUE)? Is there any body of science that supports the official story what so ever? Or do you just blissfully believe what ever the Corporate talking Head tells you to believe in the TV Box? According to the Fox News Fairy Tale Channel, no one in the United States was capable of doing such a bad things to other Americans. Because, Ex-Military personnel can't be hired to do such a things. Right? They have no price high enough to kill other Americans, Right? Nope, it had to be Scary Super-Smart Brown Islamic Boogeymen living in caves in Afghanistan. oops I mean Iraq who hate America for their freedoms. Yeah, that works. That's so much easier to believe. Scary Super-Smart Brown Islamic Boogeymen who out smarted the United States 15 Trillion Dollar Dept of Defense, and Counter Intelligence apparatus. And that was with the George Bush Presidential Daily Briefing - PDB. I guess the copious amounts of Thermite & Nano Thermate is also a figment of our collective imaginations too?
Who found this thermite? Is there any of it still about?
What exactly is nano-thermite or nano thermate?
Quote from: LCohen on September 16, 2018, 08:34:16 AM
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 16, 2018, 06:04:02 AM
Can you scientifically prove that the official story is any way factual (TRUE)? Is there any body of science that supports the official story what so ever? Or do you just blissfully believe what ever the Corporate talking Head tells you to believe in the TV Box? According to the Fox News Fairy Tale Channel, no one in the United States was capable of doing such a bad things to other Americans. Because, Ex-Military personnel can't be hired to do such a things. Right? They have no price high enough to kill other Americans, Right? Nope, it had to be Scary Super-Smart Brown Islamic Boogeymen living in caves in Afghanistan. oops I mean Iraq who hate America for their freedoms. Yeah, that works. That's so much easier to believe. Scary Super-Smart Brown Islamic Boogeymen who out smarted the United States 15 Trillion Dollar Dept of Defense, and Counter Intelligence apparatus. And that was with the George Bush Presidential Daily Briefing - PDB. I guess the copious amounts of Thermite & Nano Thermate is also a figment of our collective imaginations too?
Who found this thermite? Is there any of it still about?
What exactly is nano-thermite or nano thermate?
I think he means Kryptonite.
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 16, 2018, 06:04:02 AM
Can you scientifically prove that the official story is any way factual (TRUE)? Is there any body of science that supports the official story what so ever? Or do you just blissfully believe what ever the Corporate talking Head tells you to believe in the TV Box? According to the Fox News Fairy Tale Channel, no one in the United States was capable of doing such a bad things to other Americans. Because, Ex-Military personnel can't be hired to do such a things. Right? They have no price high enough to kill other Americans, Right? Nope, it had to be Scary Super-Smart Brown Islamic Boogeymen living in caves in Afghanistan. oops I mean Iraq who hate America for their freedoms. Yeah, that works. That's so much easier to believe. Scary Super-Smart Brown Islamic Boogeymen who out smarted the United States 15 Trillion Dollar Dept of Defense, and Counter Intelligence apparatus. And that was with the George Bush Presidential Daily Briefing - PDB. I guess the copious amounts of Thermite & Nano Thermate is also a figment of our collective imaginations too?
This lad is "super smart" and definitely not away with the fairies, or a racist anti-semite, or anything like that.
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on June 16, 2018, 09:36:07 PM
Very true and no one talks about the massacres of 30 million Germans.
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on August 01, 2018, 04:25:04 PM
The Germans never referred themselves as "Nazis". This was a derogatory term put on them for propaganda purposes. They were National Socialists.
Quote
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=28613.msg1810780#msg1810780
Irish people will be in the minority in their own Country by 2050. This knew law will just speed things up. As someone who is from the North and for the first time ever I've said this, I hope we never have a United Ireland.
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on May 17, 2018, 12:17:25 PM
The Jewmerican government under obomber pledged Israhell 38 billion in military aid over a ten year period. I have nothing but admiration for the bravery of the poor occupied and oppressed Palestinians taking them on with sling shots. However desperate their attempts are guerilla war fair would be more advisable.
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on February 06, 2018, 03:36:26 PM
Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same shekel.
Quote from: sid waddell on September 15, 2018, 08:38:34 AM
Quote from: give her dixie on September 15, 2018, 01:06:45 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on September 15, 2018, 12:16:10 AM
Quote from: give her dixie on September 14, 2018, 11:38:35 PM
https://21stcenturywire.com/2015/09/11/911-revisited-declassified-fbi-files-reveal-new-details-about-the-five-israelis/
I googled that site for the craic. I shouldn't have bothered.
Did you dismiss the article in full based on googling "that site for the craic"?
A couple of other links for you reporting on the same news
https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1
https://www.haaretz.com/1.5396918
Yes, I did, actually, because it's nothing more than a propaganda site.
What about the ABC and Haaretz articles?
Quote from: give her dixie on September 16, 2018, 10:52:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on September 15, 2018, 08:38:34 AM
Quote from: give her dixie on September 15, 2018, 01:06:45 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on September 15, 2018, 12:16:10 AM
Quote from: give her dixie on September 14, 2018, 11:38:35 PM
https://21stcenturywire.com/2015/09/11/911-revisited-declassified-fbi-files-reveal-new-details-about-the-five-israelis/
I googled that site for the craic. I shouldn't have bothered.
Did you dismiss the article in full based on googling "that site for the craic"?
A couple of other links for you reporting on the same news
https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1
https://www.haaretz.com/1.5396918
Yes, I did, actually, because it's nothing more than a propaganda site.
What about the ABC and Haaretz articles?
No, I didn't read bother reading them either because the "theory" you were advancing has been thoroughly debunked.
Quote from: sid waddell on September 16, 2018, 11:34:28 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on September 16, 2018, 10:52:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on September 15, 2018, 08:38:34 AM
Quote from: give her dixie on September 15, 2018, 01:06:45 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on September 15, 2018, 12:16:10 AM
Quote from: give her dixie on September 14, 2018, 11:38:35 PM
https://21stcenturywire.com/2015/09/11/911-revisited-declassified-fbi-files-reveal-new-details-about-the-five-israelis/
I googled that site for the craic. I shouldn't have bothered.
Did you dismiss the article in full based on googling "that site for the craic"?
A couple of other links for you reporting on the same news
https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1
https://www.haaretz.com/1.5396918
Yes, I did, actually, because it's nothing more than a propaganda site.
What about the ABC and Haaretz articles?
No, I didn't read bother reading them either because the "theory" you were advancing has been thoroughly debunked.
Did someone prove that the story of the 5 Israeli's arrested on 9/11 is false? Were ABC and Haaretz lying as well?
Quote from: give her dixie on September 16, 2018, 11:51:20 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on September 16, 2018, 11:34:28 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on September 16, 2018, 10:52:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on September 15, 2018, 08:38:34 AM
Quote from: give her dixie on September 15, 2018, 01:06:45 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on September 15, 2018, 12:16:10 AM
Quote from: give her dixie on September 14, 2018, 11:38:35 PM
https://21stcenturywire.com/2015/09/11/911-revisited-declassified-fbi-files-reveal-new-details-about-the-five-israelis/
I googled that site for the craic. I shouldn't have bothered.
Did you dismiss the article in full based on googling "that site for the craic"?
A couple of other links for you reporting on the same news
https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1
https://www.haaretz.com/1.5396918
Yes, I did, actually, because it's nothing more than a propaganda site.
What about the ABC and Haaretz articles?
No, I didn't read bother reading them either because the "theory" you were advancing has been thoroughly debunked.
Did someone prove that the story of the 5 Israeli's arrested on 9/11 is false? Were ABC and Haaretz lying as well?
No, it wasn't proved that they weren't arrested - they were arrested - it was proved that there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they had anything to do with 9/11 in terms of planning, execution or knowledge.
I have no intention of being dragged down a rabbit hole on such a stupid topic, so knock yourself out.
Quote from: sid waddell on September 17, 2018, 12:06:05 AM
Quote from: give her dixie on September 16, 2018, 11:51:20 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on September 16, 2018, 11:34:28 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on September 16, 2018, 10:52:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on September 15, 2018, 08:38:34 AM
Quote from: give her dixie on September 15, 2018, 01:06:45 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on September 15, 2018, 12:16:10 AM
Quote from: give her dixie on September 14, 2018, 11:38:35 PM
https://21stcenturywire.com/2015/09/11/911-revisited-declassified-fbi-files-reveal-new-details-about-the-five-israelis/
I googled that site for the craic. I shouldn't have bothered.
Did you dismiss the article in full based on googling "that site for the craic"?
A couple of other links for you reporting on the same news
https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1
https://www.haaretz.com/1.5396918
Yes, I did, actually, because it's nothing more than a propaganda site.
What about the ABC and Haaretz articles?
No, I didn't read bother reading them either because the "theory" you were advancing has been thoroughly debunked.
Did someone prove that the story of the 5 Israeli's arrested on 9/11 is false? Were ABC and Haaretz lying as well?
No, it wasn't proved that they weren't arrested - they were arrested - it was proved that there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they had anything to do with 9/11 in terms of planning, execution or knowledge.
I have no intention of being dragged down a rabbit hole on such a stupid topic, so knock yourself out.
Considering you said you didn't read the articles, you are quick to jump to conclusions.
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 16, 2018, 06:04:02 AM
Can you scientifically prove that the official story is any way factual (TRUE)? Is there any body of science that supports the official story what so ever? Or do you just blissfully believe what ever the Corporate talking Head tells you to believe in the TV Box? According to the Fox News Fairy Tale Channel, no one in the United States was capable of doing such a bad things to other Americans. Because, Ex-Military personnel can't be hired to do such a things. Right? They have no price high enough to kill other Americans, Right? Nope, it had to be Scary Super-Smart Brown Islamic Boogeymen living in caves in Afghanistan. oops I mean Iraq who hate America for their freedoms. Yeah, that works. That's so much easier to believe. Scary Super-Smart Brown Islamic Boogeymen who out smarted the United States 15 Trillion Dollar Dept of Defense, and Counter Intelligence apparatus. And that was with the George Bush Presidential Daily Briefing - PDB. I guess the copious amounts of Thermite & Nano Thermate is also a figment of our collective imaginations too?
I suppose the USS Cole bombing was self-inflicted by her own sailers so.
Quote from: Hardy on September 16, 2018, 08:42:07 AM
Quote from: LCohen on September 16, 2018, 08:34:16 AM
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 16, 2018, 06:04:02 AM
Can you scientifically prove that the official story is any way factual (TRUE)? Is there any body of science that supports the official story what so ever? Or do you just blissfully believe what ever the Corporate talking Head tells you to believe in the TV Box? According to the Fox News Fairy Tale Channel, no one in the United States was capable of doing such a bad things to other Americans. Because, Ex-Military personnel can't be hired to do such a things. Right? They have no price high enough to kill other Americans, Right? Nope, it had to be Scary Super-Smart Brown Islamic Boogeymen living in caves in Afghanistan. oops I mean Iraq who hate America for their freedoms. Yeah, that works. That's so much easier to believe. Scary Super-Smart Brown Islamic Boogeymen who out smarted the United States 15 Trillion Dollar Dept of Defense, and Counter Intelligence apparatus. And that was with the George Bush Presidential Daily Briefing - PDB. I guess the copious amounts of Thermite & Nano Thermate is also a figment of our collective imaginations too?
Who found this thermite? Is there any of it still about?
What exactly is nano-thermite or nano thermate?
I think he means Kryptonite.
The Spin Doctors had a Pocketful of Kryptonite. Maybe they did it.
I watched a documentary on these theories and an apparent contradiction struck me. A number of people were put forward as experts, with suitably grandiose titles. I haven't the engineering, explosive or demolition knowledge to quibble with their theories. However their focus was on Twin Towers and Pentagon. When it came to Flight 93 though the conspiracy was that a fighter shot down the plane to stop it attacking Washington.
So is it that on the same day that the US/Zionists/whoever planned a false flag attack on two targets that another high-jacking occurred? Was it another false flag operation that was in turn double-crossed? Were the hijackers, speaking Arabic bona-fide terrorists? Had they been turned? Were they actors?
All the calls from the plane were they faked?
No mention was made of the accused hijackers either. Did they exist? Were working for US/Zionists?
As a layman I can't argue against either side when it comes to Thermite, building collapsing etc.. but what my instinct tells me is that if you are going for a false flag operation of such as sensitive nature you wouldn't go with 4 planes and targets. It's too many moving parts.
To get a number of people with a past history of Islamic activism to cooperate seems beyond possibility. To get enough of people in on the act to pretend they were there is beyond possibility. To fake that many identities and backstories is beyond possibility.
I think to create a conspiracy around this you would have to at least concede that these fcukers set out to do what they did of their own accord but that someone somewhere chose to turn a blind eye because they thought it would trigger a reaction....even that is pretty dubious.
I have heard various theories about each of the attacks but never something that fitted all together.
/Jim.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on September 19, 2018, 01:20:51 PM
I watched a documentary on these theories and an apparent contradiction struck me. A number of people were put forward as experts, with suitably grandiose titles. I haven't the engineering, explosive or demolition knowledge to quibble with their theories. However their focus was on Twin Towers and Pentagon. When it came to Flight 93 though the conspiracy was that a fighter shot down the plane to stop it attacking Washington.
So is it that on the same day that the US/Zionists/whoever planned a false flag attack on two targets that another high-jacking occurred? Was it another false flag operation that was in turn double-crossed? Were the hijackers, speaking Arabic bona-fide terrorists? Had they been turned? Were they actors?
All the calls from the plane were they faked?
No mention was made of the accused hijackers either. Did they exist? Were working for US/Zionists?
As a layman I can't argue against either side when it comes to Thermite, building collapsing etc.. but what my instinct tells me is that if you are going for a false flag operation of such as sensitive nature you wouldn't go with 4 planes and targets. It's too many moving parts.
To get a number of people with a past history of Islamic activism to cooperate seems beyond possibility. To get enough of people in on the act to pretend they were there is beyond possibility. To fake that many identities and backstories is beyond possibility.
I think to create a conspiracy around this you would have to at least concede that these fcukers set out to do what they did of their own accord but that someone somewhere chose to turn a blind eye because they thought it would trigger a reaction....even that is pretty dubious.
I have heard various theories about each of the attacks but never something that fitted all together.
/Jim.
Watched something the other week (which was why I brought the thread back, and considering the shite talked on it since, I wish I hadn't have bothered) and it was an interview with the fighter pilots that were scrambled for that Flight 93, they were scrambled without weapons I think he said, it was just to get up there and check out the plane. I'd have thought those things would have the weapons on them already to blast it out of the air.
Anyways he was confident that the Flight 93 went down of its own accord and even the witnesses on the ground said the same thing, as you have said Jim, it's got to many connectors to fix together and keep in place, only needs one of them to break and it will all come tumbling down
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on September 19, 2018, 01:20:51 PM
I watched a documentary on these theories and an apparent contradiction struck me. A number of people were put forward as experts, with suitably grandiose titles. I haven't the engineering, explosive or demolition knowledge to quibble with their theories. However their focus was on Twin Towers and Pentagon. When it came to Flight 93 though the conspiracy was that a fighter shot down the plane to stop it attacking Washington.
So is it that on the same day that the US/Zionists/whoever planned a false flag attack on two targets that another high-jacking occurred? Was it another false flag operation that was in turn double-crossed? Were the hijackers, speaking Arabic bona-fide terrorists? Had they been turned? Were they actors?
All the calls from the plane were they faked?
No mention was made of the accused hijackers either. Did they exist? Were working for US/Zionists?
As a layman I can't argue against either side when it comes to Thermite, building collapsing etc.. but what my instinct tells me is that if you are going for a false flag operation of such as sensitive nature you wouldn't go with 4 planes and targets. It's too many moving parts.
To get a number of people with a past history of Islamic activism to cooperate seems beyond possibility. To get enough of people in on the act to pretend they were there is beyond possibility. To fake that many identities and backstories is beyond possibility.
I think to create a conspiracy around this you would have to at least concede that these fcukers set out to do what they did of their own accord but that someone somewhere chose to turn a blind eye because they thought it would trigger a reaction....even that is pretty dubious.
I have heard various theories about each of the attacks but never something that fitted all together.
/Jim.
The conspiracy nuts are skeptical of every bit of the commonly accepted facts but not at all skeptical of even the most ludicrous conspiracy theory.
What is this about the thermite?
Cool (sic) stuff but what exactly was it used for?
I presuming that thermite has been plucked from the abyss to back up the old "A Jet Fuel fire cant melt steel" quip whereas thermite of course could melt steel.
Not realsing of course that the offical report steel didnt state that the steel melted it just expanded and the increased temperature reduced its yield strength.
As for Nano thermite well that just sounds made up, a quick google of the term seems to point exclusively to the WTCs
When the hijackers of Flight 93 realised the passengers were putting up a fight, they rolled the plane upside down and crashed it to the ground.
Trust first then verify.
Snopes is not a fact checking site. They're another extreme leftist controlled fraudulent media outlet. It is a ex husband and wife team Barbara Mikkelson and David P. Mikkelson that created the web site.
David has the morals of a bayonet blade.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4730092/Snopes-brink-founder-accused-fraud-lying.html
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 19, 2018, 08:50:46 PM
Trust first then verify.
Snopes is not a fact checking site. They're another extreme leftist controlled fraudulent media outlet. It is a ex husband and wife team Barbara Mikkelson and David P. Mikkelson that created the web site.
David has the morals of a bayonet blade.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4730092/Snopes-brink-founder-accused-fraud-lying.html
Hilarious.
You link to a Daily Mail article to justify your position.
The story from 2017 says that snopes is on the verge of collapse.
And yet is is still here.
"extreme leftist", they have more articles debunking right wing nonsense, but that is because there is so much more right wing bullshit to debunk.
I dunno what snopes is so I have no bias there
What was the thermite used for in the WTCs. I want to understand the theory to see if its viable
Quote from: dec on September 19, 2018, 09:15:07 PM
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 19, 2018, 08:50:46 PM
Trust first then verify.
Snopes is not a fact checking site. They're another extreme leftist controlled fraudulent media outlet. It is a ex husband and wife team Barbara Mikkelson and David P. Mikkelson that created the web site.
David has the morals of a bayonet blade.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4730092/Snopes-brink-founder-accused-fraud-lying.html
Hilarious.
You link to a Daily Mail article to justify your position.
The story from 2017 says that snopes is on the verge of collapse.
And yet is is still here.
"extreme leftist", they have more articles debunking right wing nonsense, but that is because there is so much more right wing bullshit to debunk.
To the poster originally quoted, anybody who doesn't believe in his white genocide conspiracy theory is "extreme leftist".
That chap is not playing with a full deck.
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 19, 2018, 08:50:46 PM
Trust first then verify.
Snopes is not a fact checking site. They're another extreme leftist controlled fraudulent media outlet. It is a ex husband and wife team Barbara Mikkelson and David P. Mikkelson that created the web site.
David has the morals of a bayonet blade.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4730092/Snopes-brink-founder-accused-fraud-lying.html
Well if it's in the Daily Mail then it must be true. ::)
President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex. President Kennedy warned us about a secret cabal inside government. We were warned and didn't listen. Just read the Project for the New American century PNAC (led by war criminals) these men that surrounded Bush said what America needed was a "catastrophic and catalyzing event just like a new pearl harbor".
These neo-cons, radical Zionists told us the big lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It has cost millions of deaths.They have destroyed thousands of lives in Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Palestine. Creating a refugee crisis so bad and not seen since world war 2.
You can continue to believe the media industrial complex or use common sense.
"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 19, 2018, 09:49:56 PM
I dunno what snopes is so I have no bias there
What was the thermite used for in the WTCs. I want to understand the theory to see if its viable
It wasn't used for anything. The conspiracy loons suggested that thermite was used to demolish the World Trade Center buildings because it is not explosive but could produce enough heat to cut through steel beams.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3544/4278927/
We are abound with whistle blowers contrary to most opinions here. Start with Sibel Edmonds.
While you are in your discomfort zone check out Operation Gladio, Operation Gladio B and Operation Mockingbird.
911 was a Gladio B operation. The gullible were easily sucked in by the Mockingbird media.
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 19, 2018, 08:50:46 PM
Trust first then verify.
Snopes is not a fact checking site. They're another extreme leftist controlled fraudulent media outlet. It is a ex husband and wife team Barbara Mikkelson and David P. Mikkelson that created the web site.
David has the morals of a bayonet blade.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4730092/Snopes-brink-founder-accused-fraud-lying.html
Damn those Extreme leftists, always covering up for the Military Industrial complex!
It would be amazing if conspiracists were as interested in Fentanyl as 911
https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/od2017-slide01.jpg
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 19, 2018, 04:32:12 PM
When the hijackers of Flight 93 realised the passengers were putting up a fight, they rolled the plane upside down and crashed it to the ground.
Do you, or anybody, know that for sure though?
Quote from: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 11:50:21 AM
It would be amazing if conspiracists were as interested in Fentanyl as 911
https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/od2017-slide01.jpg
One of the main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan was for the control and preservation of the poppy fields. The third stage of the Hegelian Dialectic always causes more deaths than stage one (ie 911).
The Bush/Clinton orchestrated Iran Contras brought a epidemic of crack cocaine to the US especially the inner cities.
Quote from: Seamus on September 20, 2018, 01:21:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 11:50:21 AM
It would be amazing if conspiracists were as interested in Fentanyl as 911
https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/od2017-slide01.jpg
One of the main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan was for the control and preservation of the poppy fields. The third stage of the Hegelian Dialectic always causes more deaths than stage one (ie 911).
The Bush/Clinton orchestrated Iran Contras brought a epidemic of crack cocaine to the US especially the inner cities.
Yes!
The Hegelian Dialectic
I knew it
Quote from: Seamus on September 20, 2018, 01:21:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 11:50:21 AM
It would be amazing if conspiracists were as interested in Fentanyl as 911
https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/od2017-slide01.jpg
One of the main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan was for the control and preservation of the poppy fields. The third stage of the Hegelian Dialectic always causes more deaths than stage one (ie 911).
The Bush/Clinton orchestrated Iran Contras brought a epidemic of crack cocaine to the US especially the inner cities.
Why?
Is it time to close this thread maybe??
Quote from: Seamus on September 20, 2018, 01:21:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 11:50:21 AM
It would be amazing if conspiracists were as interested in Fentanyl as 911
https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/od2017-slide01.jpg
One of the main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan was for the control and preservation of the poppy fields. The third stage of the Hegelian Dialectic always causes more deaths than stage one (ie 911).
The Bush/Clinton orchestrated Iran Contras brought a epidemic of crack cocaine to the US especially the inner cities.
Fentanyl is synthetic and x times more powerful than heroin. The Yanks don't need poppies
Quote from: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 02:34:17 PM
Quote from: Seamus on September 20, 2018, 01:21:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 11:50:21 AM
It would be amazing if conspiracists were as interested in Fentanyl as 911
https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/od2017-slide01.jpg
One of the main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan was for the control and preservation of the poppy fields. The third stage of the Hegelian Dialectic always causes more deaths than stage one (ie 911).
The Bush/Clinton orchestrated Iran Contras brought a epidemic of crack cocaine to the US especially the inner cities.
Fentanyl is synthetic and x times more powerful than heroin. The Yanks don't need poppies
Quote from: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 02:34:17 PM
Quote from: Seamus on September 20, 2018, 01:21:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 11:50:21 AM
It would be amazing if conspiracists were as interested in Fentanyl as 911
https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/od2017-slide01.jpg
One of the main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan was for the control and preservation of the poppy fields. The third stage of the Hegelian Dialectic always causes more deaths than stage one (ie 911).
The Bush/Clinton orchestrated Iran Contras brought a epidemic of crack cocaine to the US especially the inner cities.
Fentanyl is synthetic and x times more powerful than heroin. The Yanks don't need poppies
You are so correct, heroin addiction is not a problem in the US
Quote from: screenexile on September 20, 2018, 02:21:24 PM
Is it time to close this thread maybe??
If this thread gets closed it will just be further evidence of a clandestine neo-con, Zionist, new World Order secretly running the world.....and also moderating this forum.
/Jim.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on September 20, 2018, 02:47:35 PM
Quote from: screenexile on September 20, 2018, 02:21:24 PM
Is it time to close this thread maybe??
If this thread gets closed it will just be further evidence of a clandestine neo-con, Zionist, new World Order secretly running the world.....and also moderating this forum.
/Jim.
Yeah Screen, you're just a sock-puppet. Why are you running scared?
(https://scontent.flhr4-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/523712_408438805857685_348882548_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=6919645737467f02e749d41321a54b3a&oe=5C2FF4A8)
Quote from: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 02:34:17 PM
Quote from: Seamus on September 20, 2018, 01:21:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 11:50:21 AM
It would be amazing if conspiracists were as interested in Fentanyl as 911
https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/od2017-slide01.jpg
One of the main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan was for the control and preservation of the poppy fields. The third stage of the Hegelian Dialectic always causes more deaths than stage one (ie 911).
The Bush/Clinton orchestrated Iran Contras brought a epidemic of crack cocaine to the US especially the inner cities.
Fentanyl is synthetic and x times more powerful than heroin. The Yanks don't need poppies
Especially with oxycontin available on prescription to get the ball rolling.
Its amazing the nefarious reach of the Clintons - they even orchestrated the Reagan era, Oliver North-managed Iran-Contra triangle and the cocaine epidemic while operating from the governor's mansion in Little Rock, Arkansas.
The good old alphabet agencies, in particular the CIA would never be involved in anything nefarious 😂😂. Follow the money.......who benefited most from the attacks on the twin towers?
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 20, 2018, 05:41:31 PM
The good old alphabet agencies, in particular the CIA would never be involved in anything nefarious 😂😂. Follow the money.......who benefited most from the attacks on the twin towers?
Boeing! Its all startin to make sense now... the f**kers flew their own planes into the towers so they could sell weapons.
Quote from: BennyCake on September 20, 2018, 01:20:01 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 19, 2018, 04:32:12 PM
When the hijackers of Flight 93 realised the passengers were putting up a fight, they rolled the plane upside down and crashed it to the ground.
Do you, or anybody, know that for sure though?
No. The plane's black box data recorders were also in on the conspiracy. ::)
Quote from: J70 on September 20, 2018, 05:22:33 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 02:34:17 PM
Quote from: Seamus on September 20, 2018, 01:21:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 11:50:21 AM
It would be amazing if conspiracists were as interested in Fentanyl as 911
https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/od2017-slide01.jpg
One of the main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan was for the control and preservation of the poppy fields. The third stage of the Hegelian Dialectic always causes more deaths than stage one (ie 911).
The Bush/Clinton orchestrated Iran Contras brought a epidemic of crack cocaine to the US especially the inner cities.
Fentanyl is synthetic and x times more powerful than heroin. The Yanks don't need poppies
Especially with oxycontin available on prescription to get the ball rolling.
Its amazing the nefarious reach of the Clintons - they even orchestrated the Reagan era, Oliver North-managed Iran-Contra triangle and the cocaine epidemic while operating from the governor's mansion in Little Rock, Arkansas.
I was wondering what kept you. I'm well versed on the Pharmaceutical Cartel thank you very much, I don't need any of you lot explaining what fentanyl is. This is a 911 thread and heroin is mentioned in the referenced graph. I was creating the link between 911 and heroin while also emphasizing that drug running is not new to the enemies of the people. Clinton was indeed governor of Arkansas during Iran Contra. Connect the dots between Wild Bill, Mena Airport, Arkansas, Barry Seal, Bush, Oliver North and drugs for guns.
Did you research Sibel Edmonds, Gladio B and Mockingbird? Knowing you gave it a miss.
Quote from: Seamus on September 21, 2018, 01:24:27 AM
Quote from: J70 on September 20, 2018, 05:22:33 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 02:34:17 PM
Quote from: Seamus on September 20, 2018, 01:21:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 11:50:21 AM
It would be amazing if conspiracists were as interested in Fentanyl as 911
https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/od2017-slide01.jpg
One of the main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan was for the control and preservation of the poppy fields. The third stage of the Hegelian Dialectic always causes more deaths than stage one (ie 911).
The Bush/Clinton orchestrated Iran Contras brought a epidemic of crack cocaine to the US especially the inner cities.
Fentanyl is synthetic and x times more powerful than heroin. The Yanks don't need poppies
Especially with oxycontin available on prescription to get the ball rolling.
Its amazing the nefarious reach of the Clintons - they even orchestrated the Reagan era, Oliver North-managed Iran-Contra triangle and the cocaine epidemic while operating from the governor's mansion in Little Rock, Arkansas.
I was wondering what kept you. I'm well versed on the Pharmaceutical Cartel thank you very much, I don't need any of you lot explaining what fentanyl is. This is a 911 thread and heroin is mentioned in the referenced graph. I was creating the link between 911 and heroin while also emphasizing that drug running is not new to the enemies of the people. Clinton was indeed governor of Arkansas during Iran Contra. Connect the dots between Wild Bill, Mena Airport, Arkansas, Barry Seal, Bush, Oliver North and drugs for guns.
Did you research Sibel Edmonds, Gladio B and Mockingbird? Knowing you gave it a miss.
So where do the Rothschilds, George Soros and Operation Cepravin DC come into all this?
Quote from: sid waddell on September 21, 2018, 01:36:57 AM
Quote from: Seamus on September 21, 2018, 01:24:27 AM
Quote from: J70 on September 20, 2018, 05:22:33 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 02:34:17 PM
Quote from: Seamus on September 20, 2018, 01:21:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 11:50:21 AM
It would be amazing if conspiracists were as interested in Fentanyl as 911
https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/od2017-slide01.jpg
One of the main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan was for the control and preservation of the poppy fields. The third stage of the Hegelian Dialectic always causes more deaths than stage one (ie 911).
The Bush/Clinton orchestrated Iran Contras brought a epidemic of crack cocaine to the US especially the inner cities.
Fentanyl is synthetic and x times more powerful than heroin. The Yanks don't need poppies
Especially with oxycontin available on prescription to get the ball rolling.
Its amazing the nefarious reach of the Clintons - they even orchestrated the Reagan era, Oliver North-managed Iran-Contra triangle and the cocaine epidemic while operating from the governor's mansion in Little Rock, Arkansas.
I was wondering what kept you. I'm well versed on the Pharmaceutical Cartel thank you very much, I don't need any of you lot explaining what fentanyl is. This is a 911 thread and heroin is mentioned in the referenced graph. I was creating the link between 911 and heroin while also emphasizing that drug running is not new to the enemies of the people. Clinton was indeed governor of Arkansas during Iran Contra. Connect the dots between Wild Bill, Mena Airport, Arkansas, Barry Seal, Bush, Oliver North and drugs for guns.
Did you research Sibel Edmonds, Gladio B and Mockingbird? Knowing you gave it a miss.
So where do the Rothschilds, George Soros and Operation Cepravin DC come into all this?
He has them covered. I bet he has even got a solution for them...
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 20, 2018, 06:03:59 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 20, 2018, 01:20:01 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 19, 2018, 04:32:12 PM
When the hijackers of Flight 93 realised the passengers were putting up a fight, they rolled the plane upside down and crashed it to the ground.
Do you, or anybody, know that for sure though?
No. The plane's black box data recorders were also in on the conspiracy. ::)
you'll be telling me next that the Titanic was hit by a torpedo from a German U-boat..... or was it?
Quote from: Seamus on September 21, 2018, 01:24:27 AM
Quote from: J70 on September 20, 2018, 05:22:33 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 02:34:17 PM
Quote from: Seamus on September 20, 2018, 01:21:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 11:50:21 AM
It would be amazing if conspiracists were as interested in Fentanyl as 911
https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/od2017-slide01.jpg
One of the main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan was for the control and preservation of the poppy fields. The third stage of the Hegelian Dialectic always causes more deaths than stage one (ie 911).
The Bush/Clinton orchestrated Iran Contras brought a epidemic of crack cocaine to the US especially the inner cities.
Fentanyl is synthetic and x times more powerful than heroin. The Yanks don't need poppies
Especially with oxycontin available on prescription to get the ball rolling.
Its amazing the nefarious reach of the Clintons - they even orchestrated the Reagan era, Oliver North-managed Iran-Contra triangle and the cocaine epidemic while operating from the governor's mansion in Little Rock, Arkansas.
I was wondering what kept you. I'm well versed on the Pharmaceutical Cartel thank you very much, I don't need any of you lot explaining what fentanyl is. This is a 911 thread and heroin is mentioned in the referenced graph. I was creating the link between 911 and heroin while also emphasizing that drug running is not new to the enemies of the people. Clinton was indeed governor of Arkansas during Iran Contra. Connect the dots between Wild Bill, Mena Airport, Arkansas, Barry Seal, Bush, Oliver North and drugs for guns.
Did you research Sibel Edmonds, Gladio B and Mockingbird? Knowing you gave it a miss.
You actually, "wrote connect the dots".
May I once again recommend this (http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-conspiracy-theory-flowchart-they.html) to Seamus and the lads?
Hardy, do you believe that there is no chance of anything in that chart being possible; anything?
Quote from: Hardy on September 21, 2018, 09:28:04 AM
May I once again recommend this (http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-conspiracy-theory-flowchart-they.html) to Seamus and the lads?
Hardy,
Initially I thought your posts were motivated by being one of
them.
However, I now realize that you are just another sheep. You have become docile and unquestioning due to fluoridation of our drinking water. Governments introduced this post World War 2 under instruction from the Illuminati.
They tell you it's good for your teeth but
they also fill those same teeth with poisonous mercury.
/Jim.
One of the amazing things about the likes of Hardy and J70 is that they are not even shills who get paid for writing such nonsense. They truly live in a Walter Mitty world.
Their little worlds will be turned upside down when the rest of the FISA memo is declassified and the indictments begin.
You'd be better off believing in Heaven
Quote from: Seamus on September 21, 2018, 12:50:17 PM
One of the amazing things about the likes of Hardy and J70 is that they are not even shills who get paid for writing such nonsense. They truly live in a Walter Mitty world.
Their little worlds will be turned upside down when the rest of the FISA memo is declassified and the indictments begin.
And in the real world, none of your half-baked, baseless, paranoid delusions will pan out and you will disappear from the gaaboard for another few months before sneaking back in for another quick drive-by injection of illogic from the fever swamp.
Quote from: Seamus on September 21, 2018, 12:50:17 PM
One of the amazing things about the likes of Hardy and J70 is that they are not even shills who get paid for writing such nonsense. They truly live in a Walter Mitty world.
Good man Seamus
Well done on outing those 2 fantasists.
You truly are the voice of reason.
Quote from: Hardy on September 21, 2018, 09:28:04 AM
May I once again recommend this (http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-conspiracy-theory-flowchart-they.html) to Seamus and the lads?
That flowchart was developed in a Government research facility, do your research watch more badly edited youtube videos and you'll understand
Good man Seamus . . . keep fighting the good fight!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ePLkAm8i2s
Quote from: Seamus on September 21, 2018, 12:50:17 PM
One of the amazing things about the likes of Hardy and J70 is that they are not even shills who get paid for writing such nonsense.
How do you know that? I have seen no evidence that Hardy and J70 are not being paid.
Vaccines are brainwashing our kids.
Wake up, sheeple, wake up.
The New York Times has as many facts as a Noddy book as well
Quote from: Hardy on September 21, 2018, 09:21:06 AM
Quote from: Seamus on September 21, 2018, 01:24:27 AM
...Connect the dots between Wild Bill, Mena Airport, Arkansas, Barry Seal, Bush, Oliver North and drugs for guns.
...
You actually, "wrote connect the dots".
That's it!!!
He is actually Tony Fearon, renowned enterer of colouring in and joint the dots competitions. No wonder we haven't heard from him recently. George Soros is paying Tony Fearon to impersonate Seamus to cover for the fact the Mossad hid Iraq's WMDs in WTC7 and it had to be destroyed to get rid of the evidence.
It all makes sense now.
Careful now Dec .... the disconnect is so severe they will think you are on their side lol
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on September 21, 2018, 11:18:40 AM
Quote from: Hardy on September 21, 2018, 09:28:04 AM
May I once again recommend this (http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-conspiracy-theory-flowchart-they.html) to Seamus and the lads?
Hardy,
Initially I thought your posts were motivated by being one of them.
However, I now realize that you are just another sheep. You have become docile and unquestioning due to fluoridation of our drinking water. Governments introduced this post World War 2 under instruction from the Illuminati. They tell you it's good for your teeth but they also fill those same teeth with poisonous mercury.
/Jim.
(https://beta-static.photobucket.com/images/uu206/Hardyarse/s0/dc1bae13-8f0b-464d-bc0b-1c9e4313415c-original.png)
Talk about poisoning people Donald Rumsfeld got cancer causing aspartame legalized. Remember him? The lad that told us the day before September 11th false flag attacks that $2.3 trillion went missing from the defense budget. (((Rabbi Zov Zakheim))) Israeli first'er king Zionist was in charge of the books. Every road leads to Tel Aviv. The fragmentation of the middle east and the greater Israel project. As out lined in PNAC.
WT7 well worth a few minutes of your time.
https://youtu.be/HT279OC09Uc
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 27, 2018, 02:03:34 AM
The lad that told us the day before September 11th false flag attacks that $2.3 trillion went missing from the defense budget.
Bullshit
Quote from: dec on September 27, 2018, 02:43:01 AM
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 27, 2018, 02:03:34 AM
The lad that told us the day before September 11th false flag attacks that $2.3 trillion went missing from the defense budget.
Bullshit
https://youtu.be/p-OOrIZBzAU
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 27, 2018, 03:05:07 AM
Quote from: dec on September 27, 2018, 02:43:01 AM
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 27, 2018, 02:03:34 AM
The lad that told us the day before September 11th false flag attacks that $2.3 trillion went missing from the defense budget.
Bullshit
https://youtu.be/p-OOrIZBzAU
That video confirmed what I already knew. Rumsfeld never said that 2.3 trillion dollars went missing.
Here is the actual quote.
"The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible. "
Quote from: dec on September 27, 2018, 05:06:34 PM
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 27, 2018, 03:05:07 AM
Quote from: dec on September 27, 2018, 02:43:01 AM
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on September 27, 2018, 02:03:34 AM
The lad that told us the day before September 11th false flag attacks that $2.3 trillion went missing from the defense budget.
Bullshit
https://youtu.be/p-OOrIZBzAU
That video confirmed what I already knew. Rumsfeld never said that 2.3 trillion dollars went missing.
Here is the actual quote.
"The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible. "
SSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They'll hear you!!
Who owns the largest tin foil hat on bye board? I've seen Hardys and it barely covers his head
RichardGage911
Closing in on Premiere "Episode 1 — Public Orientation | 9/11: Crime Scene to Courtroom" September 9, LIVE on "X"
Watch "9/11: Crime Scene to Courtroom" and Co-Produce With Us !!
RICHARD GAGE, AIA - ARCHITECT
SEP 07, 2024
https://richardgage911.substack.com/p/closing-in-on-premiere-episode-1?r=x665s&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
Quoth Wikipedia:
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building[30]: 18 (PDF p. 22) and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon.[2]: 16, 18 The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between floors 24 and 41.[2]: 17 The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps instead of being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser, and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water.[31]: 11 Additionally, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[32]: 23–30
After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[33] Over the course of the day, fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[34] During the afternoon, the fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[30]: 24 (PDF p. 28) In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[3] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[35] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[36] Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[37]
The fire expanded the girders of the building, causing some to collapse. This led to the northeast corner core column (Column 79), which was especially large, to buckle below the 13th floor. This caused the floors above it to collapse to the transfer floor at the fifth level. The structure also developed cracks in the facade just before the entire building started to fall.[2]: 21 [38] According to FEMA, this collapse started at 5:20:33 pm EDT when the east mechanical penthouse started crumbling.[1]: 23 [39] Differing times are given as to what time the building completely collapsed:[39] at 5:21:10 pm EDT according to FEMA,[1]: 23 and at 5:20:52 pm EDT according to NIST.[2]: 19, 21, 50–51
There were no casualties associated with the collapse.[38] NIST found no evidence to support conspiracy theories such as the collapse being the result of explosives; it found that a combination of factors including physical damage, fire, and the building's unusual construction set off a chain-reaction collapse.[40][41]
WT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 09, 2024, 10:19:26 PMQuoth Wikipedia:
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building[30]: 18 (PDF p. 22) and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon.[2]: 16, 18 The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between floors 24 and 41.[2]: 17 The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps instead of being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser, and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water.[31]: 11 Additionally, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[32]: 23–30
After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[33] Over the course of the day, fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[34] During the afternoon, the fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[30]: 24 (PDF p. 28) In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[3] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[35] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[36] Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[37]
The fire expanded the girders of the building, causing some to collapse. This led to the northeast corner core column (Column 79), which was especially large, to buckle below the 13th floor. This caused the floors above it to collapse to the transfer floor at the fifth level. The structure also developed cracks in the facade just before the entire building started to fall.[2]: 21 [38] According to FEMA, this collapse started at 5:20:33 pm EDT when the east mechanical penthouse started crumbling.[1]: 23 [39] Differing times are given as to what time the building completely collapsed:[39] at 5:21:10 pm EDT according to FEMA,[1]: 23 and at 5:20:52 pm EDT according to NIST.[2]: 19, 21, 50–51
There were no casualties associated with the collapse.[38] NIST found no evidence to support conspiracy theories such as the collapse being the result of explosives; it found that a combination of factors including physical damage, fire, and the building's unusual construction set off a chain-reaction collapse.[40][41]
Wikipedia lol, what a joke. The defence will have you and whoever wrote that bs as their main witnesses lol. What about watching the hours and hours of irrefutable evidence indicating that the official fairy tale is just that, a fairy tale. The irrefutable evidence brought to you by Richard Gage and his team of experts along with eye witness accounts. It will only take a few pieces of evidence to get you questioning the big lie unless there is a vacuum between the ears. The common denominator of non critical thinkers is a fear of the truth, therefore I understand that you have no intentions of watching.
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
Quote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:23:26 AMQuote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
It didn't collapse onto its own footprint. Debris was spread across a wide area. The surrounding buildings all took damage, some more than others. Building 7 was damaged enough to cause a structural failure.
Go get a hobby.
Quote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:23:26 AMQuote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
What is the
Why in your theory?
Quote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:08:20 AMQuote from: Eamonnca1 on September 09, 2024, 10:19:26 PMQuoth Wikipedia:
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building[30]: 18 (PDF p. 22) and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon.[2]: 16, 18 The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between floors 24 and 41.[2]: 17 The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps instead of being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser, and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water.[31]: 11 Additionally, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[32]: 23–30
After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[33] Over the course of the day, fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[34] During the afternoon, the fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[30]: 24 (PDF p. 28) In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[3] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[35] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[36] Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[37]
The fire expanded the girders of the building, causing some to collapse. This led to the northeast corner core column (Column 79), which was especially large, to buckle below the 13th floor. This caused the floors above it to collapse to the transfer floor at the fifth level. The structure also developed cracks in the facade just before the entire building started to fall.[2]: 21 [38] According to FEMA, this collapse started at 5:20:33 pm EDT when the east mechanical penthouse started crumbling.[1]: 23 [39] Differing times are given as to what time the building completely collapsed:[39] at 5:21:10 pm EDT according to FEMA,[1]: 23 and at 5:20:52 pm EDT according to NIST.[2]: 19, 21, 50–51
There were no casualties associated with the collapse.[38] NIST found no evidence to support conspiracy theories such as the collapse being the result of explosives; it found that a combination of factors including physical damage, fire, and the building's unusual construction set off a chain-reaction collapse.[40][41]
Wikipedia lol, what a joke. The defence will have you and whoever wrote that bs as their main witnesses lol. What about watching the hours and hours of irrefutable evidence indicating that the official fairy tale is just that, a fairy tale. The irrefutable evidence brought to you by Richard Gage and his team of experts along with eye witness accounts. It will only take a few pieces of evidence to get you questioning the big lie unless there is a vacuum between the ears. The common denominator of non critical thinkers is a fear of the truth, therefore I understand that you have no intentions of watching.
Here are the sources cited in that excerpt:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070809030232/http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05125.pdf
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF
https://www.amazon.com/WTC-9-11-01-Day-Of-Disaster/dp/B004S8MGFM
https://web.archive.org/web/20070703101259/http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/el/disasterstudies/ncst/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf
http://www.firehouse.com/stateprovince/new-york/deputy-chief-peter-hayden
http://www.firehouse.com/stateprovince/new-york/captain-chris-boyle
https://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/nyregion/22wtccnd.html
https://archive.org/details/cbs200109111651-1733
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/nyregion/22wtccnd.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
https://www.bbc.com/news/58469600
But I suppose they're all in on it, aren't they?
Can I have a one sentence summary of what this alternate theory is plz. I'm exhausted with nonsense
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 11, 2024, 01:03:15 PMQuote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:23:26 AMQuote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
What is the Why in your theory?
This should be good
Quote from: bennydorano on September 11, 2024, 08:03:25 PMCan I have a one sentence summary of what this alternate theory is plz. I'm exhausted with nonsense
The Illuminati spent a month painstakingly filling the building with Semtex without any office staff noticing, also including pyrotechnics to start fires as a false flag (without setting off the explosives, somehow), then waited until 9/11 when they hit the detonator and flattened the building, because reasons.
Maybe it was an insurance job or something.
Some great stuff out there from the tinfoil hat crowd. I once saw a photo of one of the hijacked planes annotated with a big arrow pointing to the wing root, the part of the wing's structure that gets thickest where it meets the fuselage. The annotation read "The missile pod."
Apparently someone had somehow managed to retrofit a commercial airliner to carry a missile inside the wing, and fire it at the building before flying off.
I don't follow that stuff too closely, the algorithms these days can lead you down some dark places where all sorts of weirdos come together.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 11, 2024, 11:43:58 PMQuote from: bennydorano on September 11, 2024, 08:03:25 PMCan I have a one sentence summary of what this alternate theory is plz. I'm exhausted with nonsense
The Illuminati spent a month painstakingly filling the building with Semtex without any office staff noticing, also including pyrotechnics to start fires as a false flag (without setting off the explosives, somehow), then waited until 9/11 when they hit the detonator and flattened the building, because reasons.
Maybe it was an insurance job or something.
Have you never seen Being John Malkovich? They obviously got a squad of really short people to wire up the secret half floors. All sorts of weird stuff happend in there so nobody would have noticed anything
Amazing how blinkered people allow themselves to be.
Every western country is being lead by those who are lovers of Israel.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 11, 2024, 11:43:58 PMQuote from: bennydorano on September 11, 2024, 08:03:25 PMCan I have a one sentence summary of what this alternate theory is plz. I'm exhausted with nonsense
The Illuminati spent a month painstakingly filling the building with Semtex without any office staff noticing, also including pyrotechnics to start fires as a false flag (without setting off the explosives, somehow), then waited until 9/11 when they hit the detonator and flattened the building, because reasons.
Maybe it was an insurance job or something.
Cheers Eamonn. Being a conspiracy theorist must be exhausting with the non stop investigations / constant learning required to be a multi-field expert
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 11, 2024, 11:43:58 PMQuote from: bennydorano on September 11, 2024, 08:03:25 PMCan I have a one sentence summary of what this alternate theory is plz. I'm exhausted with nonsense
The Illuminati spent a month painstakingly filling the building with Semtex without any office staff noticing, also including pyrotechnics to start fires as a false flag (without setting off the explosives, somehow), then waited until 9/11 when they hit the detonator and flattened the building, because reasons.
Maybe it was an insurance job or something.
Don't forget flying decoy planes by remote control (in 2001) into a building. Or projecting a hologram of a plane crashing, depending on who you talk to. And planting parts of the passengers belongings amongst the tower rubble.
It's like the moon landings. When you look at the conspiracy theories they are much more unlikely than what actually happened.
No doubt in life there are cover ups, lies told, money to be made and power to be gained from it, but seriously, the biggest loss of life on American soil since Pearl Harbour was done by people with their government?
And no one in all this time has spilt the beans on it? Come on
Watching a cover up story on Netflix now.. Apollo 13: Survival
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 11, 2024, 01:03:15 PMQuote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:23:26 AMQuote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
What is the Why in your theory?
You didn't witness it in the immediate and long term aftermath? You must have slept through all that also. No Patriot Act written beforehand and ready to be unveiled, no massive loss of freedoms, no Homeland Insecurity no wars etc, etc, etc?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 11, 2024, 07:41:40 PMQuote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:08:20 AMQuote from: Eamonnca1 on September 09, 2024, 10:19:26 PMQuoth Wikipedia:
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building[30]: 18 (PDF p. 22) and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon.[2]: 16, 18 The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between floors 24 and 41.[2]: 17 The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps instead of being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser, and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water.[31]: 11 Additionally, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[32]: 23–30
After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[33] Over the course of the day, fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[34] During the afternoon, the fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[30]: 24 (PDF p. 28) In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[3] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[35] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[36] Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[37]
The fire expanded the girders of the building, causing some to collapse. This led to the northeast corner core column (Column 79), which was especially large, to buckle below the 13th floor. This caused the floors above it to collapse to the transfer floor at the fifth level. The structure also developed cracks in the facade just before the entire building started to fall.[2]: 21 [38] According to FEMA, this collapse started at 5:20:33 pm EDT when the east mechanical penthouse started crumbling.[1]: 23 [39] Differing times are given as to what time the building completely collapsed:[39] at 5:21:10 pm EDT according to FEMA,[1]: 23 and at 5:20:52 pm EDT according to NIST.[2]: 19, 21, 50–51
There were no casualties associated with the collapse.[38] NIST found no evidence to support conspiracy theories such as the collapse being the result of explosives; it found that a combination of factors including physical damage, fire, and the building's unusual construction set off a chain-reaction collapse.[40][41]
Wikipedia lol, what a joke. The defence will have you and whoever wrote that bs as their main witnesses lol. What about watching the hours and hours of irrefutable evidence indicating that the official fairy tale is just that, a fairy tale. The irrefutable evidence brought to you by Richard Gage and his team of experts along with eye witness accounts. It will only take a few pieces of evidence to get you questioning the big lie unless there is a vacuum between the ears. The common denominator of non critical thinkers is a fear of the truth, therefore I understand that you have no intentions of watching.
Here are the sources cited in that excerpt:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070809030232/http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05125.pdf
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF
https://www.amazon.com/WTC-9-11-01-Day-Of-Disaster/dp/B004S8MGFM
https://web.archive.org/web/20070703101259/http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/el/disasterstudies/ncst/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf
http://www.firehouse.com/stateprovince/new-york/deputy-chief-peter-hayden
http://www.firehouse.com/stateprovince/new-york/captain-chris-boyle
https://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/nyregion/22wtccnd.html
https://archive.org/details/cbs200109111651-1733
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/nyregion/22wtccnd.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
https://www.bbc.com/news/58469600
But I suppose they're all in on it, aren't they?
Now I know where you are getting your very large dose of propaganda, CBS, BBC, NY Times, Amazon and the like. NIST and Popular Mechanics are well and truly debunked with a long time. Do you know anything about construction? By the way, your firefighter links don't work any longer. Plenty of firefighter eye witness evidence in the film, go watch it. Met several NY firefighters who were there that day, none believe the big lie.
Quote from: RedHand88 on September 11, 2024, 08:39:28 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:23:26 AMQuote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
It didn't collapse onto its own footprint. Debris was spread across a wide area. The surrounding buildings all took damage, some more than others. Building 7 was damaged enough to cause a structural failure.
Go get a hobby.
Normal protective measures could not be used as with regular controlled demolitions. Have you ever witnessed a controlled demolition of a high rise building take place? Also nanotechnology was in play (my opinion Ripple Technology, not the crypto), this explains the tons of steel flying through air and tons of concrete pulverized. Massive steel beams turned to molten lasting for months. I can speak of the steel structure and the 4 inch thickness of fireproofing surrounding each beam and gilder along with the rebar reinforced tons of concrete in WTC 7. I was a first hand witness as I worked in the construction of the building from early September 1985 to the topping off in early 1987. I was one of the first people on site after the completion of the foundation. Out of curiosity I tested the fireproofing with an oxygen acetylene torch which I'm very adept at. Barely a spark bounced off. When WTC 7 came down in 10 or so seconds I instantly know that America was attacked from within. NIST's final conclusion was that WTC 7 collapsed due to fires, what a load of crap.
Quote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 04:48:51 AMQuote from: Milltown Row2 on September 11, 2024, 01:03:15 PMQuote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:23:26 AMQuote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
What is the Why in your theory?
You didn't witness it in the immediate and long term aftermath? You must have slept through all that also. No Patriot Act written beforehand and ready to be unveiled, no massive loss of freedoms, no Homeland Insecurity no wars etc, etc, etc?
If you've nothing to hide what's the problem? What freedom have you lost?
And to get that they wiped out 3000 people?
Ok
Quote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 06:31:43 AMQuote from: RedHand88 on September 11, 2024, 08:39:28 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:23:26 AMQuote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
It didn't collapse onto its own footprint. Debris was spread across a wide area. The surrounding buildings all took damage, some more than others. Building 7 was damaged enough to cause a structural failure.
Go get a hobby.
Normal protective measures could not be used as with regular controlled demolitions. Have you ever witnessed a controlled demolition of a high rise building take place? Also nanotechnology was in play (my opinion Ripple Technology, not the crypto), this explains the tons of steel flying through air and tons of concrete pulverized. Massive steel beams turned to molten lasting for months. I can speak of the steel structure and the 4 inch thickness of fireproofing surrounding each beam and gilder along with the rebar reinforced tons of concrete in WTC 7. I was a first hand witness as I worked in the construction of the building from early September 1985 to the topping off in early 1987. I was one of the first people on site after the completion of the foundation. Out of curiosity I tested the fireproofing with an oxygen acetylene torch which I'm very adapt at. Barely a spark bounced off. When WTC 7 came down in 10 or so seconds I instantly know that America was attacked from within. NIST's final conclusion was that WTC 7 collapsed due to fires, what a load of crap.
You're bonkers! Out of curiosity ;D
So in your opinion and expertise
Were the planes hijacked by people within the US government, thus killed themselves by driving a plane into a building, to make it look like an explosion, while someone else in government set off a series of explosions that he and others planted in the building unknowingly to others.
Which other buildings were rigged? Pentagon, obviously another team of shadowy government agents rigged it and another patriot flew his plane with passengers into it, killing himself along the way to to get this act through parliament, f**k me!
Then the last plane which building was ready to be exploded before it hit the deck? The whitehouse? Was it also rigged?
All this to to create the patriot act to help prevent/reduce terrorism
Quote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 06:31:43 AMQuote from: RedHand88 on September 11, 2024, 08:39:28 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:23:26 AMQuote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
It didn't collapse onto its own footprint. Debris was spread across a wide area. The surrounding buildings all took damage, some more than others. Building 7 was damaged enough to cause a structural failure.
Go get a hobby.
Normal protective measures could not be used as with regular controlled demolitions. Have you ever witnessed a controlled demolition of a high rise building take place? Also nanotechnology was in play (my opinion Ripple Technology, not the crypto), this explains the tons of steel flying through air and tons of concrete pulverized. Massive steel beams turned to molten lasting for months. I can speak of the steel structure and the 4 inch thickness of fireproofing surrounding each beam and gilder along with the rebar reinforced tons of concrete in WTC 7. I was a first hand witness as I worked in the construction of the building from early September 1985 to the topping off in early 1987. I was one of the first people on site after the completion of the foundation. Out of curiosity I tested the fireproofing with an oxygen acetylene torch which I'm very adapt at. Barely a spark bounced off. When WTC 7 came down in 10 or so seconds I instantly know that America was attacked from within. NIST's final conclusion was that WTC 7 collapsed due to fires, what a load of crap.
The conspiracy goes way back and Seamus is in on it. They deliberately weakened the steel with an acetylene torch. No wonder it collapsed.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 13, 2024, 07:17:12 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 04:48:51 AMQuote from: Milltown Row2 on September 11, 2024, 01:03:15 PMQuote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:23:26 AMQuote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
What is the Why in your theory?
You didn't witness it in the immediate and long term aftermath? You must have slept through all that also. No Patriot Act written beforehand and ready to be unveiled, no massive loss of freedoms, no Homeland Insecurity no wars etc, etc, etc?
If you've nothing to hide what's the problem? What freedom have you lost?
And to get that they wiped out 3000 people?
Ok
Did you even read the Patriot Act? No freedoms lost, are you kidding me, surely you are not that much of a zombie.
3,000 people, what planet are you living on? How about the thousands more who died of cancers who worked at ground zero and the millions due to wars? Those criminals don't give a dam about any number of deaths.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 13, 2024, 07:33:21 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 06:31:43 AMQuote from: RedHand88 on September 11, 2024, 08:39:28 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:23:26 AMQuote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
It didn't collapse onto its own footprint. Debris was spread across a wide area. The surrounding buildings all took damage, some more than others. Building 7 was damaged enough to cause a structural failure.
Go get a hobby.
Normal protective measures could not be used as with regular controlled demolitions. Have you ever witnessed a controlled demolition of a high rise building take place? Also nanotechnology was in play (my opinion Ripple Technology, not the crypto), this explains the tons of steel flying through air and tons of concrete pulverized. Massive steel beams turned to molten lasting for months. I can speak of the steel structure and the 4 inch thickness of fireproofing surrounding each beam and gilder along with the rebar reinforced tons of concrete in WTC 7. I was a first hand witness as I worked in the construction of the building from early September 1985 to the topping off in early 1987. I was one of the first people on site after the completion of the foundation. Out of curiosity I tested the fireproofing with an oxygen acetylene torch which I'm very adapt at. Barely a spark bounced off. When WTC 7 came down in 10 or so seconds I instantly know that America was attacked from within. NIST's final conclusion was that WTC 7 collapsed due to fires, what a load of crap.
You're bonkers! Out of curiosity ;D
So in your opinion and expertise
Were the planes hijacked by people within the US government, thus killed themselves by driving a plane into a building, to make it look like an explosion, while someone else in government set off a series of explosions that he and others planted in the building unknowingly to others.
Which other buildings were rigged? Pentagon, obviously another team of shadowy government agents rigged it and another patriot flew his plane with passengers into it, killing himself along the way to to get this act through parliament, f**k me!
Then the last plane which building was ready to be exploded before it hit the deck? The whitehouse? Was it also rigged?
All this to to create the patriot act to help prevent/reduce terrorism
What a load of stupid uniformed questions. Mohamed Atta, who's passport was found on the streets of New York. give me a break. None of those "hijackers" could even navigate a simulator on the ground. Watch Mohamed Atta's Flying Circus. Strip clubs, drinking and incompetence, some devoted Muslims they are. All "hijackers" must have live resembling cats.
Plane hit the Pentagon, show me the evidence. Video evidence shows a missile.
Last plane heading for the White House, no such thing, no plane ever heading in that direction. "Lets Roll", what a joke, never happened. Again show me the evidence of such a plane. "Oh. I heard it on tv and read it in the newspapers and the government told me so it must be true". None of that carries any weight. "all this to create a Patriot Act" did you not see the what else I mentioned plus etc, etc, etc?
If I remember rightly you are in the medical field and love treating illnesses with toxic chemicals. That little world of yours is also about to come crumbling down, mainly due to what happened over the last four or five years. The US will be one of the last countries to give in.
Quote from: LeoMc on September 13, 2024, 07:53:38 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 06:31:43 AMQuote from: RedHand88 on September 11, 2024, 08:39:28 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:23:26 AMQuote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
It didn't collapse onto its own footprint. Debris was spread across a wide area. The surrounding buildings all took damage, some more than others. Building 7 was damaged enough to cause a structural failure.
Go get a hobby.
Normal protective measures could not be used as with regular controlled demolitions. Have you ever witnessed a controlled demolition of a high rise building take place? Also nanotechnology was in play (my opinion Ripple Technology, not the crypto), this explains the tons of steel flying through air and tons of concrete pulverized. Massive steel beams turned to molten lasting for months. I can speak of the steel structure and the 4 inch thickness of fireproofing surrounding each beam and gilder along with the rebar reinforced tons of concrete in WTC 7. I was a first hand witness as I worked in the construction of the building from early September 1985 to the topping off in early 1987. I was one of the first people on site after the completion of the foundation. Out of curiosity I tested the fireproofing with an oxygen acetylene torch which I'm very adapt at. Barely a spark bounced off. When WTC 7 came down in 10 or so seconds I instantly know that America was attacked from within. NIST's final conclusion was that WTC 7 collapsed due to fires, what a load of crap.
The conspiracy goes way back and Seamus is in on it. They deliberately weakened the steel with an acetylene torch. No wonder it collapsed.
The Q Deck ceilings were also fireproofed. What a nonsensical response. The steel was not weakened by fire as per the official report. Do you know the difference between office fires and the cutting power of an oxygen acetylene torch? Yet another person clueless about construction
So was it a remote control plane that went into the towers or was it some and mirrors?
In your search for facts, how many people are involved and who was at the head of this?
Quote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 08:02:38 AMQuote from: Milltown Row2 on September 13, 2024, 07:17:12 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 04:48:51 AMQuote from: Milltown Row2 on September 11, 2024, 01:03:15 PMQuote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:23:26 AMQuote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
What is the Why in your theory?
You didn't witness it in the immediate and long term aftermath? You must have slept through all that also. No Patriot Act written beforehand and ready to be unveiled, no massive loss of freedoms, no Homeland Insecurity no wars etc, etc, etc?
If you've nothing to hide what's the problem? What freedom have you lost?
And to get that they wiped out 3000 people?
Ok
Did you even read the Patriot Act? No freedoms lost, are you kidding me, surely you are not that much of a zombie.
3,000 people, what planet are you living on? How about the thousands more who died of cancers who worked at ground zero and the millions due to wars? Those criminals don't give a dam about any number of deaths.
Would you recommend?
Lads we have a live one. Seamus son you are nuts. I get it that theres cover ups and jiggery pokery in all walks of life- but f**k me. Get a grip.
Who flew the planes into the towers then. There is video evidence of planes hitting the towers. How di they choose what planes to take and people to sacrifice? They would have to been able pilots to fly a plane. Or where these people trained as pilots beforehand knowing what they were to carry out?
Was it a remote control plane. Was it an illusion? So many questions
Seamus I categorically refuse to believe you were testing the WTC foundations in 1985 with an oxygen acetylene torch. You have completely made that up in order to lend false evidence to your deluded conspiracy theory.
I'm with Seamus
Quote from: JoG2 on September 13, 2024, 09:21:57 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 08:02:38 AMQuote from: Milltown Row2 on September 13, 2024, 07:17:12 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 04:48:51 AMQuote from: Milltown Row2 on September 11, 2024, 01:03:15 PMQuote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:23:26 AMQuote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
What is the Why in your theory?
You didn't witness it in the immediate and long term aftermath? You must have slept through all that also. No Patriot Act written beforehand and ready to be unveiled, no massive loss of freedoms, no Homeland Insecurity no wars etc, etc, etc?
If you've nothing to hide what's the problem? What freedom have you lost?
And to get that they wiped out 3000 people?
Ok
Did you even read the Patriot Act? No freedoms lost, are you kidding me, surely you are not that much of a zombie.
3,000 people, what planet are you living on? How about the thousands more who died of cancers who worked at ground zero and the millions due to wars? Those criminals don't give a dam about any number of deaths.
Would you recommend?
Watch the movie instead. Harrison Ford is excellent in it.
Quote from: thebigfella on September 13, 2024, 11:04:45 AMQuote from: JoG2 on September 13, 2024, 09:21:57 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 08:02:38 AMQuote from: Milltown Row2 on September 13, 2024, 07:17:12 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 04:48:51 AMQuote from: Milltown Row2 on September 11, 2024, 01:03:15 PMQuote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:23:26 AMQuote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
What is the Why in your theory?
You didn't witness it in the immediate and long term aftermath? You must have slept through all that also. No Patriot Act written beforehand and ready to be unveiled, no massive loss of freedoms, no Homeland Insecurity no wars etc, etc, etc?
If you've nothing to hide what's the problem? What freedom have you lost?
And to get that they wiped out 3000 people?
Ok
Did you even read the Patriot Act? No freedoms lost, are you kidding me, surely you are not that much of a zombie.
3,000 people, what planet are you living on? How about the thousands more who died of cancers who worked at ground zero and the millions due to wars? Those criminals don't give a dam about any number of deaths.
Would you recommend?
Watch the movie instead. Harrison Ford is excellent in it.
😁
Quote from: RedHand88 on September 13, 2024, 10:14:56 AMSeamus I categorically refuse to believe you were testing the WTC foundations in 1985 with an oxygen acetylene torch. You have completely made that up in order to lend false evidence to your deluded conspiracy theory.
I've used Oxy Acetylene burning equipment for many years and I can say (from experience) you can cut through any metal up to at least 6"
as for it being fireproofed well I'm not sure on how long that stuff lasts or depending on damage/impact of the imaginary planes/rockets had on it.
But Redhand is right, you are talking keek
Quote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 08:35:48 AMQuote from: LeoMc on September 13, 2024, 07:53:38 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 06:31:43 AMQuote from: RedHand88 on September 11, 2024, 08:39:28 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:23:26 AMQuote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
It didn't collapse onto its own footprint. Debris was spread across a wide area. The surrounding buildings all took damage, some more than others. Building 7 was damaged enough to cause a structural failure.
Go get a hobby.
Normal protective measures could not be used as with regular controlled demolitions. Have you ever witnessed a controlled demolition of a high rise building take place? Also nanotechnology was in play (my opinion Ripple Technology, not the crypto), this explains the tons of steel flying through air and tons of concrete pulverized. Massive steel beams turned to molten lasting for months. I can speak of the steel structure and the 4 inch thickness of fireproofing surrounding each beam and gilder along with the rebar reinforced tons of concrete in WTC 7. I was a first hand witness as I worked in the construction of the building from early September 1985 to the topping off in early 1987. I was one of the first people on site after the completion of the foundation. Out of curiosity I tested the fireproofing with an oxygen acetylene torch which I'm very adapt at. Barely a spark bounced off. When WTC 7 came down in 10 or so seconds I instantly know that America was attacked from within. NIST's final conclusion was that WTC 7 collapsed due to fires, what a load of crap.
The conspiracy goes way back and Seamus is in on it. They deliberately weakened the steel with an acetylene torch. No wonder it collapsed.
The Q Deck ceilings were also fireproofed. What a nonsensical response. The steel was not weakened by fire as per the official report. Do you know the difference between office fires and the cutting power of an oxygen acetylene torch? Yet another person clueless about construction
Right I have some, but limited knowledge of steel erection. But are you claiming a 4000 degree torch wouldn't weaken fireproofed steel? If held to it? Is that seriously what you're claiming?
There are lots of strands to 9/11 which are very suspicious, but always struggled with arguments about how the buildings wouldn't have collapsed as they did, due to the fuel fire temperature etc., as surely it is too unique a situation that even expert engineers best explanations are just guesses, unless they have recreated the flying of a passenger plane into a skyscraper to assess the impacts.
The biggest piss take was surely finding the hijacker passport in the rubble
And was there something about a certain ethnicity not turning in to work at the towers that day?
Quote from: tiempo on September 13, 2024, 11:43:02 AMThe biggest piss take was surely finding the hijacker passport in the rubble
And was there something about a certain ethnicity not turning in to work at the towers that day?
No.
3 buildings went down like controlled demolitions (one didn't need jet fuel) and theres nothing to see here. ::)
Thank god for the proponents of the war on terror, who went after the bad muslims (something they'd been pushing for years prior). America/Israel deep state would never do false flags to move the needle.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 13, 2024, 11:25:39 AMQuote from: RedHand88 on September 13, 2024, 10:14:56 AMSeamus I categorically refuse to believe you were testing the WTC foundations in 1985 with an oxygen acetylene torch. You have completely made that up in order to lend false evidence to your deluded conspiracy theory.
I've used Oxy Acetylene burning equipment for many years and I can say (from experience) you can cut through any metal up to at least 6"
as for it being fireproofed well I'm not sure on how long that stuff lasts or depending on damage/impact of the imaginary planes/rockets had on it.
But Redhand is right, you are talking keek
Monokote is one of the leading fireproofing brands in the US.
This particular one from a very quick google search is rated for up to four hours on i-beams, three on decking.
And I'd imagine that best-case protection would be compromised by blasts and high pressure. :)
Monokote (https://gcpat.com/en/solutions/products/monokote-fireproofing/monokote-mk-6hy-product-data-sheet#:~:text=MONOKOTE%C2%AE%20MK%2D6%20HY,with%20SPATTERKOTE%C2%AE%20SK%2D3.)
Quote from: tiempo on September 13, 2024, 11:43:02 AMThe biggest piss take was surely finding the hijacker passport in the rubble
You mean that didn't happen? :o
There were credit cards and wallets of passengers found also, some bodies were found others no trace.
The bodies that were never traced can be found at Area 51
Those that planned it and executed it mysteriously died from 'accidents'
Quote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 08:35:48 AMQuote from: LeoMc on September 13, 2024, 07:53:38 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 06:31:43 AMQuote from: RedHand88 on September 11, 2024, 08:39:28 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:23:26 AMQuote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
It didn't collapse onto its own footprint. Debris was spread across a wide area. The surrounding buildings all took damage, some more than others. Building 7 was damaged enough to cause a structural failure.
Go get a hobby.
Normal protective measures could not be used as with regular controlled demolitions. Have you ever witnessed a controlled demolition of a high rise building take place? Also nanotechnology was in play (my opinion Ripple Technology, not the crypto), this explains the tons of steel flying through air and tons of concrete pulverized. Massive steel beams turned to molten lasting for months. I can speak of the steel structure and the 4 inch thickness of fireproofing surrounding each beam and gilder along with the rebar reinforced tons of concrete in WTC 7. I was a first hand witness as I worked in the construction of the building from early September 1985 to the topping off in early 1987. I was one of the first people on site after the completion of the foundation. Out of curiosity I tested the fireproofing with an oxygen acetylene torch which I'm very adapt at. Barely a spark bounced off. When WTC 7 came down in 10 or so seconds I instantly know that America was attacked from within. NIST's final conclusion was that WTC 7 collapsed due to fires, what a load of crap.
The conspiracy goes way back and Seamus is in on it. They deliberately weakened the steel with an acetylene torch. No wonder it collapsed.
The Q Deck ceilings were also fireproofed. What a nonsensical response. The steel was not weakened by fire as per the official report. Do you know the difference between office fires and the cutting power of an oxygen acetylene torch? Yet another person clueless about construction
I would know as little about construction aa you know about reality.
I don't really want to get sucked into this idiotic debate, but one question about "the towers collapsed like controlled demolitions" "argument"?
Leaving aside that the one third of the south tower above the crash zone actually tilted a bit to the side because the damage from the plane was focused on one side of the building, how exactly are giant buildings supposed to collapse other than mostly into their own footprint?
Does gravity not pulled a falling object, especially dense heavy materials like structural steel, concrete and rebar, pretty much straight down?
Quote from: tiempo on September 13, 2024, 11:43:02 AMThe biggest piss take was surely finding the hijacker passport in the rubble
And was there something about a certain ethnicity not turning in to work at the towers that day?
Yes
Quote from: J70 on September 13, 2024, 01:10:23 PMI don't really want to get sucked into this idiotic debate, but one question about "the towers collapsed like controlled demolitions" "argument"?
Leaving aside that the one third of the south tower above the crash zone actually tilted a bit to the side because the damage from the plane was focused on one side of the building, how exactly are giant buildings supposed to collapse other than mostly into their own footprint?
Does gravity not pulled a falling object, especially dense heavy materials like structural steel, concrete and rebar, pretty much straight down?
No, they are meant to fall likes trees.. Timber!
Quote from: RedHand88 on September 13, 2024, 11:45:46 AMQuote from: tiempo on September 13, 2024, 11:43:02 AMThe biggest piss take was surely finding the hijacker passport in the rubble
And was there something about a certain ethnicity not turning in to work at the towers that day?
No.
After 9/11 one of the many batshit crazy rumours was that Jews had been told to stay at home because they had been given advance notice of the attacks. Like everything else that our friends in the conspiracy loon community come out with there was not a single shred of evidence for that.
Only one possible solution.
Rebuild a replica tower
Fly a plane full of passengers into said tower
Analysis results and come to conclusion
Happy Seamus??
If you intended to bring down the buildings using controlled explosions why not simply drive a large truck into the underground car park with a bomb and use it as a decoy. Covering up one form of demolition by using a completely different method i.e. flying a plane into the building seems overly complex.
Quote from: GTP on September 13, 2024, 04:09:27 PMIf you intended to bring down the buildings using controlled explosions why not simply drive a large truck into the underground car park with a bomb and use it as a decoy. Covering up one form of demolition by using a completely different method i.e. flying a plane into the building seems overly complex.
Because they already tried something similar eight years before and it didn't work.
1993 World Trade Center bombing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing)
The tinfoil hat crowd would simply point to the 1993 bombings and say it couldn't have worked.
Quote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 06:31:43 AMQuote from: RedHand88 on September 11, 2024, 08:39:28 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:23:26 AMQuote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
It didn't collapse onto its own footprint. Debris was spread across a wide area. The surrounding buildings all took damage, some more than others. Building 7 was damaged enough to cause a structural failure.
Go get a hobby.
Normal protective measures could not be used as with regular controlled demolitions. Have you ever witnessed a controlled demolition of a high rise building take place? Also nanotechnology was in play (my opinion Ripple Technology, not the crypto), this explains the tons of steel flying through air and tons of concrete pulverized. Massive steel beams turned to molten lasting for months. I can speak of the steel structure and the 4 inch thickness of fireproofing surrounding each beam and gilder along with the rebar reinforced tons of concrete in WTC 7. I was a first hand witness as I worked in the construction of the building from early September 1985 to the topping off in early 1987. I was one of the first people on site after the completion of the foundation. Out of curiosity I tested the fireproofing with an oxygen acetylene torch which I'm very adept at. Barely a spark bounced off. When WTC 7 came down in 10 or so seconds I instantly know that America was attacked from within. NIST's final conclusion was that WTC 7 collapsed due to fires, what a load of crap.
Ah ripple Nonotechnology, not crypto nanotechnology. Now I'm convinced.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 13, 2024, 05:14:38 PMQuote from: GTP on September 13, 2024, 04:09:27 PMIf you intended to bring down the buildings using controlled explosions why not simply drive a large truck into the underground car park with a bomb and use it as a decoy. Covering up one form of demolition by using a completely different method i.e. flying a plane into the building seems overly complex.
Because they already tried something similar eight years before and it didn't work.
1993 World Trade Center bombing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing)
The tinfoil hat crowd would simply point to the 1993 bombings and say it couldn't have worked.
Forgot about that you could nearly believe that terrorists learned from this attack and came up with something more deadly for 9/11.
Quote from: GTP on September 13, 2024, 06:34:13 PMQuote from: Eamonnca1 on September 13, 2024, 05:14:38 PMQuote from: GTP on September 13, 2024, 04:09:27 PMIf you intended to bring down the buildings using controlled explosions why not simply drive a large truck into the underground car park with a bomb and use it as a decoy. Covering up one form of demolition by using a completely different method i.e. flying a plane into the building seems overly complex.
Because they already tried something similar eight years before and it didn't work.
1993 World Trade Center bombing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing)
The tinfoil hat crowd would simply point to the 1993 bombings and say it couldn't have worked.
Forgot about that you could nearly believe that terrorists learned from this attack and came up with something more deadly for 9/11.
Was at and up the WT Center that summer, security was tight getting in but I told the security it's ok, I'm from Belfast ;)
Did notice some Jews with clipboards cameras and timer's hanging out of their shawls
This anti semite thought Israel got away with cold blooded murder.
Robert McNamara supported the conclusion (taking the word of the attackers rather than those on the ship) that the attack of USS Liberty was not intentional
911 conspiracy theories aside what I find strangest is that they went and invaded Afghanistan when all along these lads were almost to a man Saudis...Hardline Wahhabi Islamists.
Why not invade Saudi Arabia?
Quote from: johnnycool on September 16, 2024, 05:24:09 PM911 conspiracy theories aside what I find strangest is that they went and invaded Afghanistan when all along these lads were almost to a man Saudis...Hardline Wahhabi Islamists.
Why not invade Saudi Arabia?
I guess the logic was that the hijackers were affiliated with Al Qaeda, who were hosted by the Taliban, not the Saudi government.
And then you obviously throw in the oil market and the ties between certain Saudis and certain Americans.
The Afghan war is not seen as controversial in the US.
The Iraq war now is, including, ironically, by much of the right, despite them using it as a massive electoral and cultural cudgel against the left for 15 years. Remember freedom fries, Hans Blix, "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" (the French), John Kerry "looks French" (I shit you not - Fox News was pushing this). The utter hatred directed towards the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan etc?
Makes you wonder if they'll look back with regret at Trump by the time we get to 2040. Although I'm not sure any of them actually "regret" their rhetoric and conduct concerning the Iraq war.
Quote from: theskull1 on September 13, 2024, 10:38:43 AMI'm with Seamus
Who was it asked about the biggest tinfoil hat wearer?
There's a cracking documentary on Netflix at the minute
Turning point the bomb and Cold War
Of course there will be certain views people will look at and rubbish it but I find it more informative that stuff I've read or seen before.
I'm up to the mid 60's at the minute.
It's understandable why there is a tin hat brigade out there because most espionage during that time was misinformation.
That said I still can't see that imaginary planes were missiles disguised as planes were used to bring down the Towers
Quote from: johnnycool on September 16, 2024, 05:24:09 PM911 conspiracy theories aside what I find strangest is that they went and invaded Afghanistan when all along these lads were almost to a man Saudis...Hardline Wahhabi Islamists.
Why not invade Saudi Arabia?
Or Iraq.
Quote from: J70 on September 16, 2024, 05:40:12 PMQuote from: johnnycool on September 16, 2024, 05:24:09 PM911 conspiracy theories aside what I find strangest is that they went and invaded Afghanistan when all along these lads were almost to a man Saudis...Hardline Wahhabi Islamists.
Why not invade Saudi Arabia?
I guess the logic was that the hijackers were affiliated with Al Qaeda, who were hosted by the Taliban, not the Saudi government.
And then you obviously throw in the oil market and the ties between certain Saudis and certain Americans.
The Afghan war is not seen as controversial in the US.
The Iraq war now is, including, ironically, by much of the right, despite them using it as a massive electoral and cultural cudgel against the left for 15 years. Remember freedom fries, Hans Blix, "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" (the French), John Kerry "looks French" (I shit you not - Fox News was pushing this). The utter hatred directed towards the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan etc?
Makes you wonder if they'll look back with regret at Trump by the time we get to 2040. Although I'm not sure any of them actually "regret" their rhetoric and conduct concerning the Iraq war.
I remember all that back then. Freedom fries - absolutely nuts.
Quote from: Simon OParlon on September 17, 2024, 08:18:42 AMQuote from: J70 on September 16, 2024, 05:40:12 PMQuote from: johnnycool on September 16, 2024, 05:24:09 PM911 conspiracy theories aside what I find strangest is that they went and invaded Afghanistan when all along these lads were almost to a man Saudis...Hardline Wahhabi Islamists.
Why not invade Saudi Arabia?
I guess the logic was that the hijackers were affiliated with Al Qaeda, who were hosted by the Taliban, not the Saudi government.
And then you obviously throw in the oil market and the ties between certain Saudis and certain Americans.
The Afghan war is not seen as controversial in the US.
The Iraq war now is, including, ironically, by much of the right, despite them using it as a massive electoral and cultural cudgel against the left for 15 years. Remember freedom fries, Hans Blix, "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" (the French), John Kerry "looks French" (I shit you not - Fox News was pushing this). The utter hatred directed towards the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan etc?
Makes you wonder if they'll look back with regret at Trump by the time we get to 2040. Although I'm not sure any of them actually "regret" their rhetoric and conduct concerning the Iraq war.
I remember all that back then. Freedom fries - absolutely nuts.
Al Qaeda where the remnants of the Mujahedeen, the US backed to the balls with guns and training during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and were as much based in Pakistan as Afghanistan and once again heavily reliant on Saudi recruits. Guess which one has a nuclear arsenal?
If I was Iran or Iraq I'd be busting my balls to get my hands on nuclear weapons too.
Bin Laden himself is from one of the richest families in Saudi, owners of Bin Telecoms, who the likes of Bechtel (very large US Engineering firm) did a lot of work with. The Bin Ladens were and probably still are major shareholders in Lockhead Martin, purveyors of fine death instruments.
Ever think you're getting played?
Quote from: johnnycool on September 17, 2024, 08:29:42 AMQuote from: Simon OParlon on September 17, 2024, 08:18:42 AMQuote from: J70 on September 16, 2024, 05:40:12 PMQuote from: johnnycool on September 16, 2024, 05:24:09 PM911 conspiracy theories aside what I find strangest is that they went and invaded Afghanistan when all along these lads were almost to a man Saudis...Hardline Wahhabi Islamists.
Why not invade Saudi Arabia?
I guess the logic was that the hijackers were affiliated with Al Qaeda, who were hosted by the Taliban, not the Saudi government.
And then you obviously throw in the oil market and the ties between certain Saudis and certain Americans.
The Afghan war is not seen as controversial in the US.
The Iraq war now is, including, ironically, by much of the right, despite them using it as a massive electoral and cultural cudgel against the left for 15 years. Remember freedom fries, Hans Blix, "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" (the French), John Kerry "looks French" (I shit you not - Fox News was pushing this). The utter hatred directed towards the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan etc?
Makes you wonder if they'll look back with regret at Trump by the time we get to 2040. Although I'm not sure any of them actually "regret" their rhetoric and conduct concerning the Iraq war.
I remember all that back then. Freedom fries - absolutely nuts.
Al Qaeda where the remnants of the Mujahedeen, the US backed to the balls with guns and training during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and were as much based in Pakistan as Afghanistan and once again heavily reliant on Saudi recruits. Guess which one has a nuclear arsenal?
If I was Iran or Iraq I'd be busting my balls to get my hands on nuclear weapons too.
Bin Laden himself is from one of the richest families in Saudi, owners of Bin Telecoms, who the likes of Bechtel (very large US Engineering firm) did a lot of work with. The Bin Ladens were and probably still are major shareholders in Lockhead Martin, purveyors of fine death instruments.
Ever think you're getting played?
Every hour of every day we're being played
Another thing , didn't the US (and many others) boycott the Moscow Olympics because Russia invaded Afghanistan?
Funny, I don't remember anyone boycotting world cups or Olympics after the US led invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 (or Iraq in 2003)
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 17, 2024, 10:03:51 AMQuote from: johnnycool on September 17, 2024, 08:29:42 AMQuote from: Simon OParlon on September 17, 2024, 08:18:42 AMQuote from: J70 on September 16, 2024, 05:40:12 PMQuote from: johnnycool on September 16, 2024, 05:24:09 PM911 conspiracy theories aside what I find strangest is that they went and invaded Afghanistan when all along these lads were almost to a man Saudis...Hardline Wahhabi Islamists.
Why not invade Saudi Arabia?
I guess the logic was that the hijackers were affiliated with Al Qaeda, who were hosted by the Taliban, not the Saudi government.
And then you obviously throw in the oil market and the ties between certain Saudis and certain Americans.
The Afghan war is not seen as controversial in the US.
The Iraq war now is, including, ironically, by much of the right, despite them using it as a massive electoral and cultural cudgel against the left for 15 years. Remember freedom fries, Hans Blix, "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" (the French), John Kerry "looks French" (I shit you not - Fox News was pushing this). The utter hatred directed towards the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan etc?
Makes you wonder if they'll look back with regret at Trump by the time we get to 2040. Although I'm not sure any of them actually "regret" their rhetoric and conduct concerning the Iraq war.
I remember all that back then. Freedom fries - absolutely nuts.
Al Qaeda where the remnants of the Mujahedeen, the US backed to the balls with guns and training during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and were as much based in Pakistan as Afghanistan and once again heavily reliant on Saudi recruits. Guess which one has a nuclear arsenal?
If I was Iran or Iraq I'd be busting my balls to get my hands on nuclear weapons too.
Bin Laden himself is from one of the richest families in Saudi, owners of Bin Telecoms, who the likes of Bechtel (very large US Engineering firm) did a lot of work with. The Bin Ladens were and probably still are major shareholders in Lockhead Martin, purveyors of fine death instruments.
Ever think you're getting played?
Every hour of every day we're being played
Another thing , didn't the US (and many others) boycott the Moscow Olympics because Russia invaded Afghanistan?
Funny, I don't remember anyone boycotting world cups or Olympics after the US led invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 (or Iraq in 2003)
Why did the Soviets invade Afghanistan?
There was little opposition to the US invasion of Afghanistan. After 9/11, it was mostly seen as justified as it was a safe haven for Al Qaeda. The 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah were not controversial for that reason.
Iraq... the likes of Blair went along with the weapons of mass destruction nonsense, but there was a huge amount of popular opposition and protests around the world, unlike the Afghan war.
But none of the Olympics or WC of that period were held in the US.
Quote from: Simon OParlon on September 17, 2024, 08:18:42 AMQuote from: J70 on September 16, 2024, 05:40:12 PMQuote from: johnnycool on September 16, 2024, 05:24:09 PM911 conspiracy theories aside what I find strangest is that they went and invaded Afghanistan when all along these lads were almost to a man Saudis...Hardline Wahhabi Islamists.
Why not invade Saudi Arabia?
I guess the logic was that the hijackers were affiliated with Al Qaeda, who were hosted by the Taliban, not the Saudi government.
And then you obviously throw in the oil market and the ties between certain Saudis and certain Americans.
The Afghan war is not seen as controversial in the US.
The Iraq war now is, including, ironically, by much of the right, despite them using it as a massive electoral and cultural cudgel against the left for 15 years. Remember freedom fries, Hans Blix, "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" (the French), John Kerry "looks French" (I shit you not - Fox News was pushing this). The utter hatred directed towards the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan etc?
Makes you wonder if they'll look back with regret at Trump by the time we get to 2040. Although I'm not sure any of them actually "regret" their rhetoric and conduct concerning the Iraq war.
I remember all that back then. Freedom fries - absolutely nuts.
(https://cropper.watch.aetnd.com/public-content-aetn.video.aetnd.com/video-thumbnails/AETN-History_Prod/84/532/History_Speeches_1511_GW_Bush_Mission_Accomplished_SF_still_624x352.jpg)
It was a strange time.
Quote from: J70 on September 17, 2024, 10:39:05 AMQuote from: AustinPowers on September 17, 2024, 10:03:51 AMQuote from: johnnycool on September 17, 2024, 08:29:42 AMQuote from: Simon OParlon on September 17, 2024, 08:18:42 AMQuote from: J70 on September 16, 2024, 05:40:12 PMQuote from: johnnycool on September 16, 2024, 05:24:09 PM911 conspiracy theories aside what I find strangest is that they went and invaded Afghanistan when all along these lads were almost to a man Saudis...Hardline Wahhabi Islamists.
Why not invade Saudi Arabia?
I guess the logic was that the hijackers were affiliated with Al Qaeda, who were hosted by the Taliban, not the Saudi government.
And then you obviously throw in the oil market and the ties between certain Saudis and certain Americans.
The Afghan war is not seen as controversial in the US.
The Iraq war now is, including, ironically, by much of the right, despite them using it as a massive electoral and cultural cudgel against the left for 15 years. Remember freedom fries, Hans Blix, "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" (the French), John Kerry "looks French" (I shit you not - Fox News was pushing this). The utter hatred directed towards the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan etc?
Makes you wonder if they'll look back with regret at Trump by the time we get to 2040. Although I'm not sure any of them actually "regret" their rhetoric and conduct concerning the Iraq war.
I remember all that back then. Freedom fries - absolutely nuts.
Al Qaeda where the remnants of the Mujahedeen, the US backed to the balls with guns and training during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and were as much based in Pakistan as Afghanistan and once again heavily reliant on Saudi recruits. Guess which one has a nuclear arsenal?
If I was Iran or Iraq I'd be busting my balls to get my hands on nuclear weapons too.
Bin Laden himself is from one of the richest families in Saudi, owners of Bin Telecoms, who the likes of Bechtel (very large US Engineering firm) did a lot of work with. The Bin Ladens were and probably still are major shareholders in Lockhead Martin, purveyors of fine death instruments.
Ever think you're getting played?
Every hour of every day we're being played
Another thing , didn't the US (and many others) boycott the Moscow Olympics because Russia invaded Afghanistan?
Funny, I don't remember anyone boycotting world cups or Olympics after the US led invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 (or Iraq in 2003)
Why did the Soviets invade Afghanistan?
There was little opposition to the US invasion of Afghanistan. After 9/11, it was mostly seen as justified as it was a safe haven for Al Qaeda. The 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah were not controversial for that reason.
Iraq... the likes of Blair went along with the weapons of mass destruction nonsense, but there was a huge amount of popular opposition and protests around the world, unlike the Afghan war.
But none of the Olympics or WC of that period were held in the US.
Because the moderate Afghani Gov of the time asked them to because of the religious nut jobs wanting to roll back on a lot of the progress they'd made and boy do the Russians/Soviets regret that!
Quote from: J70 on September 17, 2024, 10:39:05 AMQuote from: AustinPowers on September 17, 2024, 10:03:51 AMQuote from: johnnycool on September 17, 2024, 08:29:42 AMQuote from: Simon OParlon on September 17, 2024, 08:18:42 AMQuote from: J70 on September 16, 2024, 05:40:12 PMQuote from: johnnycool on September 16, 2024, 05:24:09 PM911 conspiracy theories aside what I find strangest is that they went and invaded Afghanistan when all along these lads were almost to a man Saudis...Hardline Wahhabi Islamists.
Why not invade Saudi Arabia?
I guess the logic was that the hijackers were affiliated with Al Qaeda, who were hosted by the Taliban, not the Saudi government.
And then you obviously throw in the oil market and the ties between certain Saudis and certain Americans.
The Afghan war is not seen as controversial in the US.
The Iraq war now is, including, ironically, by much of the right, despite them using it as a massive electoral and cultural cudgel against the left for 15 years. Remember freedom fries, Hans Blix, "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" (the French), John Kerry "looks French" (I shit you not - Fox News was pushing this). The utter hatred directed towards the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan etc?
Makes you wonder if they'll look back with regret at Trump by the time we get to 2040. Although I'm not sure any of them actually "regret" their rhetoric and conduct concerning the Iraq war.
I remember all that back then. Freedom fries - absolutely nuts.
Al Qaeda where the remnants of the Mujahedeen, the US backed to the balls with guns and training during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and were as much based in Pakistan as Afghanistan and once again heavily reliant on Saudi recruits. Guess which one has a nuclear arsenal?
If I was Iran or Iraq I'd be busting my balls to get my hands on nuclear weapons too.
Bin Laden himself is from one of the richest families in Saudi, owners of Bin Telecoms, who the likes of Bechtel (very large US Engineering firm) did a lot of work with. The Bin Ladens were and probably still are major shareholders in Lockhead Martin, purveyors of fine death instruments.
Ever think you're getting played?
Every hour of every day we're being played
Another thing , didn't the US (and many others) boycott the Moscow Olympics because Russia invaded Afghanistan?
Funny, I don't remember anyone boycotting world cups or Olympics after the US led invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 (or Iraq in 2003)
Why did the Soviets invade Afghanistan?
There was little opposition to the US invasion of Afghanistan. After 9/11, it was mostly seen as justified as it was a safe haven for Al Qaeda. The 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah were not controversial for that reason.
Iraq... the likes of Blair went along with the weapons of mass destruction nonsense, but there was a huge amount of popular opposition and protests around the world, unlike the Afghan war.
But none of the Olympics or WC of that period were held in the US.
True, the big events weren't in the US, but they should have been threw out of Eurovision at least ;)
I remember a while after the Afghanistan invasion thinking, if this was the IRA who attacked London, it would be like the British army bombing the shit out of Ireland, from Malin to Mizen, to take out a few dozen men, who could have been on the Skelligs or Tory island, or anywhere in the world. The Brits were dirty filthy hoors in Ireland, but the Afghanistan invasion made the Brits look like pussycats in comparison.
But, as I said earlier, we are being played everyday
Quote from: AustinPowers on September 17, 2024, 05:31:12 PMTrue, the big events weren't in the US, but they should have been threw out of Eurovision at least ;)
I remember a while after the Afghanistan invasion thinking, if this was the IRA who attacked London, it would be like the British army bombing the shit out of Ireland, from Malin to Mizen, to take out a few dozen men, who could have been on the Skelligs or Tory island, or anywhere in the world. The Brits were dirty filthy hoors in Ireland, but the Afghanistan invasion made the Brits look like pussycats in comparison.
But, as I said earlier, we are being played everyday
Yeah but the Irish look like the English and even speak the same language. Even drive on the same side of the road. Not so easy to de-humanise them.
[/quote]
Quote from: samuel maguire on September 13, 2024, 03:29:59 PMOnly one possible solution.
Rebuild a replica tower
Fly a plane full of passengers into said tower
Analysis results and come to conclusion
Happy Seamus??
You need to go back to the drawing board Sammy, No plane hit World Trade Center 7
No, it was an illusion, in fact if you look hard enough those buildings are still standing
Quote from: LeoMc on September 13, 2024, 12:48:25 PMQuote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 08:35:48 AMQuote from: LeoMc on September 13, 2024, 07:53:38 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 06:31:43 AMQuote from: RedHand88 on September 11, 2024, 08:39:28 AMQuote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:23:26 AMQuote from: Wildweasel74 on September 09, 2024, 10:28:28 PMWT7 collapsed, because guess what, they hadn't decided to drop half a building on it, and have internal fire rage through it, to test if it take such damage. Just like a bad fire at Grenfell highlighted a material deficient. Never understood why rainscreen cladding hadn't External fire breaks outside floor levels anyway
So half a building falling on World Trade Center 7 was the main cause of the collapse, a 10 second collapse into its own footprint. I presume you are talking about one of WTC 1 or 2 being the instigator. That is 55 floors falling on top of WTC 7, have you video evidence of this? The official lie didn't even come up with that one.
It didn't collapse onto its own footprint. Debris was spread across a wide area. The surrounding buildings all took damage, some more than others. Building 7 was damaged enough to cause a structural failure.
Go get a hobby.
Normal protective measures could not be used as with regular controlled demolitions. Have you ever witnessed a controlled demolition of a high rise building take place? Also nanotechnology was in play (my opinion Ripple Technology, not the crypto), this explains the tons of steel flying through air and tons of concrete pulverized. Massive steel beams turned to molten lasting for months. I can speak of the steel structure and the 4 inch thickness of fireproofing surrounding each beam and gilder along with the rebar reinforced tons of concrete in WTC 7. I was a first hand witness as I worked in the construction of the building from early September 1985 to the topping off in early 1987. I was one of the first people on site after the completion of the foundation. Out of curiosity I tested the fireproofing with an oxygen acetylene torch which I'm very adapt at. Barely a spark bounced off. When WTC 7 came down in 10 or so seconds I instantly know that America was attacked from within. NIST's final conclusion was that WTC 7 collapsed due to fires, what a load of crap.
The conspiracy goes way back and Seamus is in on it. They deliberately weakened the steel with an acetylene torch. No wonder it collapsed.
The Q Deck ceilings were also fireproofed. What a nonsensical response. The steel was not weakened by fire as per the official report. Do you know the difference between office fires and the cutting power of an oxygen acetylene torch? Yet another person clueless about construction
I would know as little about construction aa you know about reality.
Don't underestimate yourself, don't confine your lack of knowledge to just construction. You live in a false reality of lies and deception. You have plenty of company here. Most members login daily to pat each other on the back and go about their ignorant ways. When the Plandemic couldn't bring them to their senses there is little hope. The same members dancing to the same tune for years. Herd mentality is the enemy of a free society.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 13, 2024, 07:14:52 PMNo, it was an illusion, in fact if you look hard enough those buildings are still standing
Dill Dandin' surely?
Quote from: RedHand88 on September 13, 2024, 10:14:56 AMSeamus I categorically refuse to believe you were testing the WTC foundations in 1985 with an oxygen acetylene torch. You have completely made that up in order to lend false evidence to your deluded conspiracy theory.
So you are saying that I'm a liar. Everything I wrote is 100% true. There are tons of evidence available proving that 9/11 was an inside job without I having to give my first hand experience with regards the construction of the building.
Where did I say that I was testing WTC foundations? I was on one of the upper floors, there was steel structures and fireproofing throughout that building.
Stick with your fake news for all I care
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 13, 2024, 07:14:52 PMNo, it was an illusion, in fact if you look hard enough those buildings are still standing
It's amazing how the mind works, how did you get convinced that a plane hit WTC 7? Those false flag perpetrators know that the vast majority of the people are dumbed down and will believe everything they are spoon fed without questioning.
Quote from: Seamus on October 13, 2024, 08:08:43 PMQuote from: Milltown Row2 on October 13, 2024, 07:14:52 PMNo, it was an illusion, in fact if you look hard enough those buildings are still standing
It's amazing how the mind works, how did you get convinced that a plane hit WTC 7? Those false flag perpetrators know that the vast majority of the people are dumbed down and will believe everything they are spoon fed without questioning.
Oh the irony
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 13, 2024, 08:15:51 PMQuote from: Seamus on October 13, 2024, 08:08:43 PMQuote from: Milltown Row2 on October 13, 2024, 07:14:52 PMNo, it was an illusion, in fact if you look hard enough those buildings are still standing
It's amazing how the mind works, how did you get convinced that a plane hit WTC 7? Those false flag perpetrators know that the vast majority of the people are dumbed down and will believe everything they are spoon fed without questioning.
Oh the irony
You never question any official fary tale, fall for them hook line and sinker. So the planes that hit WTC 1 and 2 knocked off the fireproofing in WTC 7 going by one of your deluded theories.
https://peimpact.com/the-collapse-of-world-trade-center-building-7/
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 13, 2024, 08:33:14 PMhttps://peimpact.com/the-collapse-of-world-trade-center-building-7/
If you believe that garbage then you don't have one ounce of common sense. The only truth in that report is the location, everything else is a big lie. Every sentence a lie. NIST, just like The Warren Commission in the sixties are the gatekeepers of the crime.
Going by their report WTC 7 was built over a Con Edison building.
"The structural design of WTC 7 was unique. It was built over an existing Con Edison substation, which required the use of long-span beams and girders to transfer loads from the building's columns to the foundations. This design made the building more vulnerable to the effects of uncontrolled fires"
Big lie #1, I was one of the first personal on the site after the completion of the foundation on August 1985. There was no Con Edison Building in sight. The building site comprised of one full block of 42,000 square feet. The only structure in place at the time was one floor underground. Again no sight of a Con Edison building there either. Maybe if I dug down I may have found it.
It is possible that a Con Edison building was on that site previously and got demolished for the building of WTC 7.
They know well that they can get away with such nonsense as the majority will believe everything.
I could debate every sentence but lets conclude here with the issue of fireproofing which I have visited earlier. NIST mentioned that office furniture was one of the main reasons why the building collapsed. They are really taking the mickey now but they know their audience.
Quote with regards the fireproofing and they had to throw in the long span steel which is of course a lie.
"The collapse of WTC 7 provides valuable lessons for engineers and architects. It highlights the potential vulnerability of long-span steel structures to uncontrolled fires and the risk of progressive collapse. It also underscores the importance of fireproofing and the need for robust fire protection systems in tall buildings"
I have never witnessed more fireproofing before or since and of the highest quality. This is a steel framed Q Deck building we are talking about. Office furniture, what a joke, again they know their audience. Firefighters I know said the small fires were completely under control but they were ordered to vacate the building because Silverstein decided to 'pull" it. "Pull" means controlled demolition in the industry.
Now I will post evidence of what really happened on 9/11.
Irrefutable evidence that the Official 9/11 fairy tale is just that, a fairy tale. This is just the tip of the iceberg
63 Interviews so far in 2024 — reaching millions again this year! Thank you for supporting us!
Another year has flown by, and this year's Anniversary of 9/11 was another sombering opportunity to bring these horrendous Deep State crimes to the forefront of humanity's collective mind, which in turn, will hopefully lead to justice for the victims and their families, and accountability for the real perpetrators.
This past year, to me, has honestly felt like the cloaks of the Deep State lies are being torn down, one by one, with each interview and every journalist who chimes in on "What about Building 7", or "How DID those buildings collapse like that?"
With all of the difficult truths that are being exposed about the seemingly never-ending assaults on humanity, it's almost as though "we" have been given permission to "go there", despite the criticism and attacks by the corrupt Mainstream Media, those who are still "asleep" and those who are simply confused and afraid to let go of their cognitive dissonance.
So, the tide seems to be turning and people seem to be steadily growing more and more hungry for truth, therefore many people are learning about Building 7 for the first time, which in turn, opens their minds to the Twin Towers . . . and then many other false flag events are "allowed in" to their consciousness, and become more legitimate to them.
How do we, here at RichardGage911, contribute to the "mass awakening" of humanity? Well, one of the major and most effective ways is for Richard to share his many years of research into 9/11 and other more recent false flags, through interviews. And one very important way that YOU can contribute, is to share the critical research reflected in these interview with the people in your world.
We started off our 9/11 Truth Anniversary commemoration on September 1st with Ahmed Elkholy and Patrick Phillips of Geneva Academy . They didn't want their audience to miss ANY of the critically important technical evidence, expert testimonies, and witness testimonies that Richard has developed in his extensive presentations for both Building 7 and the Twin Towers, so they interviewed him in two parts:
Luke Rudkowski is the founder of We Are Change, an organization that is comprised of independent journalists, concerned citizens, activists, and anyone who wants to shape the direction our world is going in. Luke has interviewed Richard many times over the past almost twenty years since founding his original organization — Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
https://rumble.com/v5eb5dp-was-911-an-inside-job-guest-richard-gage-the-baptist-bias-season-4.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Ahmed Elkholy and Patrick Phillips of Geneva Academy
Part 1 — Building 7:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/DASocCVvpn5s?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Part 2 — The Twin Towers:
https://old.bitchute.com/video/SnTgXst5Phpd/
Jonathan from The Baptist Bias Show kept the 9/11 truth flow going with a very powerful interview from Richard. Jonathan and his co-host Benjamin had one goal — "to prove through this interview that the official story of 9/11 cannot explain how the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed, and how the official story conflicts with logic and facts from an architectural perspective".
https://rumble.com/v5eb5dp-was-911-an-inside-job-guest-richard-gage-the-baptist-bias-season-4.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Richard Gage, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Quote from: Seamus on October 14, 2024, 07:18:05 PMIrrefutable evidence that the Official 9/11 fairy tale is the real conspiracy theory. This is just the tip of the iceberg https://richardgage911.substack.com/p/2024-911-anniversary-interviews-of?publication_id=486716&post_id=149012859&isFreemail=true&r=2q42kp&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
If you believe that garbage.... See how it works?
The tinfoil hat crew are never going to convert normal people to their cause.
Normal people are never going to convince the tinfoil hat crowd to wise up.
What is the purpose of this thread? Can we lock it up?
I used to think the world was full of everyday sensible people.Took the internet, Covid, American Election,Israel, to realise 50% of people out there are f**king space cadets.They talk about mental health awareness.I think if a proper health assessment was done in people,we have some shocking outcomes.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 14, 2024, 07:35:03 PMQuote from: Seamus on October 14, 2024, 07:18:05 PMIrrefutable evidence that the Official 9/11 fairy tale is the real conspiracy theory. This is just the tip of the iceberg https://richardgage911.substack.com/p/2024-911-anniversary-interviews-of?publication_id=486716&post_id=149012859&isFreemail=true&r=2q42kp&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
If you believe that garbage.... See how it works?
You didn't even watch one minute of any of the videos, fearful of the truth, I understand how you lot operate. If you did there is no way you would still be as dumb as you are. At least I read that garbage report you posted, unfortunately I will never get those two minutes back.
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on October 14, 2024, 08:45:33 PMI used to think the world was full of everyday sensible people.Took the internet, Covid, American Election,Israel, to realise 50% of people out there are f**king space cadets.They talk about mental health awareness.I think if a proper health assessment was done in people,we have some shocking outcomes.
Sure you have Big pHARMa to protect you. Go run to them.
Do the people on here trust Governments, Trust organisations like the UN, WEF, The WHO, The EU?
Did you believe in the War on Iraq? The war in Afganistan? The (so called) War in Gazza?
Did ye believe in Internment? Was it correct not to burn the Bond holders?
Why is there a fear of saying this doesn't add up or this seems wrong?
Quote from: From the Bunker on October 14, 2024, 11:12:30 PMDo the people on here trust Governments, Trust organisations like the UN, WEF, The WHO, The EU?
Did you believe in the War on Iraq? The war in Afganistan? The (so called) War in Gazza?
Did ye believe in Internment? Was it correct not to burn the Bond holders?
Why is there a fear of saying this doesn't add up or this seems wrong?
There's a huge difference between controversial policies and massive conspiracies that would have to involve untold numbers of people.
I don't how you lads get up in the morning with all the nefarious organizations and individuals hiding in the shadows pulling strings and apparently ruining your lives. Must be a terrifying existence. But then I suppose you at least achieve a wee bit of self respect and agency from being "in the know".
Question EVERYTHING
The media are controlling you
Jesus!
What's important to you? Your family? Or fighting the the imaginary Bond villains running the world?
I've about 23 summers left ( using family life average) where I'll be physically well enough (I hope) to enjoy being around my family. It's not a lot when you look at it.
Personally my concerns in life are not trying to fix the planets ills, there's not one person in here that's going to do that or even the whole collective ain't either. Is that an I'm all right Jack attitude? Maybe, my family comes first.
Naturally I'll question and look at different angles for a lot of things, will that change what happen? No, so while it's great to have different perspectives, my advice is to concentrate on what's important while you are here, unless in one of those conspiracies there's the answer to what happens when we die ;)
Quote from: theskull1 on October 15, 2024, 07:17:10 AMQuestion EVERYTHING
The media are controlling you
Yes we should all listen to you instead and do what you say.
Quote from: theskull1 on October 15, 2024, 07:17:10 AMQuestion EVERYTHING
The media are controlling you
Questioning is fine, and needed. Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. However, you have to ally that with intelligence and logic and sound judgment.
Or you end up where we are today, where FEMA workers in North Carolina have to suspend their good work because they are not safe due to dangerous morons believing every implausible, half-baked conspiracy theory (and there are a lot) being churned out.
At a personal level, the moment you catch someone lying, from that point onwards you should always be on your guard when it comes to anything else they tell you.
When you consider that Israel can do no wrong in a very large number of western countries governments and the media messaging ensures anti Israel sentiment isn't encouraged..... Just that on its own tells me that our politicians and media do not have the best interests of humanity driving them.Never mind the wars in Iraq and Libya etc
The world is going mad thanks to these people and the signs are that it's only going to get worse.
Can anyone sense a positive signal that paints a brighter picture? If so I'd be willing to hear it.
You don't need a conspiracy theory or alleged shadowy forces to explain the pro-Israel bias of western foreign policy.
Quote from: J70 on October 15, 2024, 12:13:13 PMYou don't need a conspiracy theory or alleged shadowy forces to explain the pro-Israel bias of western foreign policy.
I'm pretty sure you do ... but happy for you to give us your explanation of the above topic to demonstrate your point.
Quote from: J70 on October 15, 2024, 10:45:32 AMQuote from: theskull1 on October 15, 2024, 07:17:10 AMQuestion EVERYTHING
The media are controlling you
Questioning is fine, and needed. Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. However, you have to ally that with intelligence and logic and sound judgment.
Or you end up where we are today, where FEMA workers in North Carolina have to suspend their good work because they are not safe due to dangerous morons believing every implausible, half-baked conspiracy theory (and there are a lot) being churned out.
Another Big FEMA shill.
Quote from: theskull1 on October 15, 2024, 12:58:31 PMQuote from: J70 on October 15, 2024, 12:13:13 PMYou don't need a conspiracy theory or alleged shadowy forces to explain the pro-Israel bias of western foreign policy.
I'm pretty sure you do ... but happy for you to give us your explanation of the above topic to demonstrate your point.
Western-style democracy with close personal, cultural, political, economic and historical ties to the US and Europe sitting in the midst of the oil-rich, Muslim Middle East, some of which is allied with Iran, a hostile foe of the US. Sorry, not seeing the conspiracy or shadowy Rothschild forces at play. It's pretty much geopolitics being played out in the open.
Quote from: J70 on October 15, 2024, 02:55:06 PMQuote from: theskull1 on October 15, 2024, 12:58:31 PMQuote from: J70 on October 15, 2024, 12:13:13 PMYou don't need a conspiracy theory or alleged shadowy forces to explain the pro-Israel bias of western foreign policy.
I'm pretty sure you do ... but happy for you to give us your explanation of the above topic to demonstrate your point.
Western-style democracy with close personal, cultural, political, economic and historical ties to the US and Europe sitting in the midst of the oil-rich, Muslim Middle East, some of which is allied with Iran, a hostile foe of the US. Sorry, not seeing the conspiracy or shadowy Rothschild forces at play. It's pretty much geopolitics being played out in the open.
Have you ever heard of the Balfour Declaration?
Quote from: johnnycool on October 15, 2024, 03:48:04 PMQuote from: J70 on October 15, 2024, 02:55:06 PMQuote from: theskull1 on October 15, 2024, 12:58:31 PMQuote from: J70 on October 15, 2024, 12:13:13 PMYou don't need a conspiracy theory or alleged shadowy forces to explain the pro-Israel bias of western foreign policy.
I'm pretty sure you do ... but happy for you to give us your explanation of the above topic to demonstrate your point.
Western-style democracy with close personal, cultural, political, economic and historical ties to the US and Europe sitting in the midst of the oil-rich, Muslim Middle East, some of which is allied with Iran, a hostile foe of the US. Sorry, not seeing the conspiracy or shadowy Rothschild forces at play. It's pretty much geopolitics being played out in the open.
Have you ever heard of the Balfour Declaration?
So what you're saying is that it is all the Brit's fault.
Quote from: johnnycool on October 15, 2024, 03:48:04 PMQuote from: J70 on October 15, 2024, 02:55:06 PMQuote from: theskull1 on October 15, 2024, 12:58:31 PMQuote from: J70 on October 15, 2024, 12:13:13 PMYou don't need a conspiracy theory or alleged shadowy forces to explain the pro-Israel bias of western foreign policy.
I'm pretty sure you do ... but happy for you to give us your explanation of the above topic to demonstrate your point.
Western-style democracy with close personal, cultural, political, economic and historical ties to the US and Europe sitting in the midst of the oil-rich, Muslim Middle East, some of which is allied with Iran, a hostile foe of the US. Sorry, not seeing the conspiracy or shadowy Rothschild forces at play. It's pretty much geopolitics being played out in the open.
Have you ever heard of the Balfour Declaration?
Sure.
Deadly ::)
"The less you know the more you think you know"
Quote from: dec on October 15, 2024, 03:55:01 PMQuote from: johnnycool on October 15, 2024, 03:48:04 PMQuote from: J70 on October 15, 2024, 02:55:06 PMQuote from: theskull1 on October 15, 2024, 12:58:31 PMQuote from: J70 on October 15, 2024, 12:13:13 PMYou don't need a conspiracy theory or alleged shadowy forces to explain the pro-Israel bias of western foreign policy.
I'm pretty sure you do ... but happy for you to give us your explanation of the above topic to demonstrate your point.
Western-style democracy with close personal, cultural, political, economic and historical ties to the US and Europe sitting in the midst of the oil-rich, Muslim Middle East, some of which is allied with Iran, a hostile foe of the US. Sorry, not seeing the conspiracy or shadowy Rothschild forces at play. It's pretty much geopolitics being played out in the open.
Have you ever heard of the Balfour Declaration?
So what you're saying is that it is all the Brit's fault.
Who else but the Colonial Empires could take it upon themselves to gift someone elses land to an open Zionist in Lord Rothschild and here we are?
Come on lads, spell it out for us idiots in the back. Preferably in crayon so we can understand.
So for starters "not seeing shadowy Rothschild forces at play" when discussing Israel
Makes you look clueless
Quote from: theskull1 on October 15, 2024, 04:35:28 PMSo for starters "not seeing shadowy Rothschild forces at play" when discussing Israel
Makes you look clueless
Like I said, spell out how all of this works.
Such a bad faith interlocutor
Quote from: theskull1 on October 15, 2024, 05:00:52 PMSuch a bad faith interlocutor
You just said I was clueless.
Clearly you have robust, well-supported knowledge and insight to share.
I said you look clueless .... prove me wrong
I love this thread ;D
Jesus wept.
Quote from: theskull1 on October 15, 2024, 05:14:40 PMI said you look clueless .... prove me wrong
Nah, I'm good. ;D
I'm pretty comfortable with my stance that the basis for western support for Israel is far from mysterious and is basically down to western governments serving their own perceived geopolitical interests. If you want to make the case that it's all down to super-rich, elite Jewish families (or whomever) pulling strings in their own interests, knock yourself out.
Besides, and I'm just going on your posting here over the last while, you don't strike me as someone who is actually open to being "proved wrong" on anything. There's always something shady REALLY going on and the rest of us are all dim-witted morons. And if one element of the conspiracy theory doesn't stand up, there's always another place to move the goal posts to.
Quote from: Seamus on September 13, 2024, 05:01:45 AMQuote from: Eamonnca1 on September 11, 2024, 07:41:40 PMQuote from: Seamus on September 11, 2024, 03:08:20 AMQuote from: Eamonnca1 on September 09, 2024, 10:19:26 PMQuoth Wikipedia:
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building[30]: 18 (PDF p. 22) and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon.[2]: 16, 18 The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between floors 24 and 41.[2]: 17 The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps instead of being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser, and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water.[31]: 11 Additionally, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[32]: 23–30
After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[33] Over the course of the day, fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[34] During the afternoon, the fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[30]: 24 (PDF p. 28) In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[3] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[35] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[36] Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[37]
The fire expanded the girders of the building, causing some to collapse. This led to the northeast corner core column (Column 79), which was especially large, to buckle below the 13th floor. This caused the floors above it to collapse to the transfer floor at the fifth level. The structure also developed cracks in the facade just before the entire building started to fall.[2]: 21 [38] According to FEMA, this collapse started at 5:20:33 pm EDT when the east mechanical penthouse started crumbling.[1]: 23 [39] Differing times are given as to what time the building completely collapsed:[39] at 5:21:10 pm EDT according to FEMA,[1]: 23 and at 5:20:52 pm EDT according to NIST.[2]: 19, 21, 50–51
There were no casualties associated with the collapse.[38] NIST found no evidence to support conspiracy theories such as the collapse being the result of explosives; it found that a combination of factors including physical damage, fire, and the building's unusual construction set off a chain-reaction collapse.[40][41]
Wikipedia lol, what a joke. The defence will have you and whoever wrote that bs as their main witnesses lol. What about watching the hours and hours of irrefutable evidence indicating that the official fairy tale is just that, a fairy tale. The irrefutable evidence brought to you by Richard Gage and his team of experts along with eye witness accounts. It will only take a few pieces of evidence to get you questioning the big lie unless there is a vacuum between the ears. The common denominator of non critical thinkers is a fear of the truth, therefore I understand that you have no intentions of watching.
Here are the sources cited in that excerpt:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070809030232/http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05125.pdf
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF
https://www.amazon.com/WTC-9-11-01-Day-Of-Disaster/dp/B004S8MGFM
https://web.archive.org/web/20070703101259/http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/el/disasterstudies/ncst/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf
http://www.firehouse.com/stateprovince/new-york/deputy-chief-peter-hayden
http://www.firehouse.com/stateprovince/new-york/captain-chris-boyle
https://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/nyregion/22wtccnd.html
https://archive.org/details/cbs200109111651-1733
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/nyregion/22wtccnd.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
https://www.bbc.com/news/58469600
But I suppose they're all in on it, aren't they?
Now I know where you are getting your very large dose of propaganda, CBS, BBC, NY Times, Amazon and the like. NIST and Popular Mechanics are well and truly debunked with a long time. Do you know anything about construction? By the way, your firefighter links don't work any longer. Plenty of firefighter eye witness evidence in the film, go watch it. Met several NY firefighters who were there that day, none believe the big lie.
Me: Here's the explanation.
You: You don't cite the sources.
Me: Cites the sources.
You: I reject all of those sources because everyone except for my plucky band of conspiracy theorists is in on it.
This is a waste of time.