gaaboard.com

Non GAA Discussion => General discussion => Topic started by: Fuzzman on September 28, 2016, 04:32:04 PM

Title: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 28, 2016, 04:47:13 PM
It depends.

If you are a conspiracy loon you believe this sort of nonsense.

If you are normal you don't.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Hound on September 28, 2016, 04:49:36 PM
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!
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: haranguerer on September 28, 2016, 04:50:55 PM
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??
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: seafoid on September 28, 2016, 04:51:08 PM
The WTC was destroyed by Hillary clinton's email server.  But you won't hear that in the libtard media.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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.

Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 28, 2016, 05:37:38 PM
For those who believe the controlled demolition theory, when were the explosives planted?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 28, 2016, 05:38:32 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??
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: gallsman on September 28, 2016, 05:42:46 PM
God I can't wait until Stew gets round to trying to read this thread.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: RealSpiritof98 on September 29, 2016, 12:17:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: J70 on September 29, 2016, 02:13:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 29, 2016, 03:00:15 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Jell 0 Biafra on September 29, 2016, 03:10:49 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 06:04:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: muppet on September 29, 2016, 06:16:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: LeoMc on September 29, 2016, 08:35:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: haranguerer on September 29, 2016, 08:39:03 AM
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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: seafoid on September 29, 2016, 10:16:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: BennyCake on September 29, 2016, 10:42:23 AM
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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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?

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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: J70 on September 29, 2016, 11:01:02 AM
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??
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: J70 on September 29, 2016, 11:49:21 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Hardy on September 29, 2016, 12:07:13 PM
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.

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

Quote
I 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?

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


Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Up The Middle on September 29, 2016, 12:08:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: J70 on September 29, 2016, 12:23:37 PM
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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Fuzzman on September 29, 2016, 12:28:14 PM
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)

Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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.

Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Hardy on September 29, 2016, 12:43:23 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

Quote
I'm already surprised how many on here think it was all made up or at least part of it was.
Me too.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: sid waddell on September 29, 2016, 01:22:20 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: seafoid on September 29, 2016, 01:44:57 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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).
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: J70 on September 29, 2016, 02:50:26 PM
Just use this (http://crispian-jago.blogspot.ie/2013/04/the-conspiracy-theory-flowchart-they.html).

 ;D
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: stew on September 29, 2016, 03:02:48 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!
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: J70 on September 29, 2016, 03:15:59 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!
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: muppet on September 29, 2016, 03:36:47 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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: BennyCake on September 29, 2016, 04:02:31 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: J70 on September 29, 2016, 04:06:31 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: balladmaker on September 29, 2016, 04:12:08 PM
Quote
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'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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Puckoon on September 29, 2016, 04:32:22 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!
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 29, 2016, 04:49:07 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: muppet on September 29, 2016, 04:50:22 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 29, 2016, 04:53:44 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!
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: sid waddell on September 29, 2016, 05:29:14 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Main Street on September 29, 2016, 05:44:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 05:53:50 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"
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: J70 on September 29, 2016, 07:31:24 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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 😉
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 29, 2016, 08:43:56 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: J70 on September 29, 2016, 09:05:19 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 09:07:11 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 😉😉
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 09:09:17 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 29, 2016, 09:19:28 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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 09:50:37 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. 😉
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 10:07:10 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: seafoid on September 29, 2016, 10:20:28 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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 10:29:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 10:39:48 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 ?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 29, 2016, 10:45:32 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!!
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 29, 2016, 10:47:31 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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 10:48:26 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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 11:33:07 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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: muppet on September 30, 2016, 01:08:48 AM

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

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?



Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 02:11:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 03:52:05 AM

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

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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: ha ha derry on September 30, 2016, 07:20:22 AM
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. 😂😂
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 08:06:29 AM
I wish people had the same level of curiosity about the financial system
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Tony Baloney on September 30, 2016, 08:34:47 AM
I wish people had the same level of curiosity about the financial system
You've got it covered.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: johnneycool on September 30, 2016, 10:38:22 AM
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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 11:16:08 AM
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
 
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 08:58:01 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 09:12:40 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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: muppet on September 30, 2016, 09:44:11 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

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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 30, 2016, 09:54:12 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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: RealSpiritof98 on October 01, 2016, 10:34:23 AM
https://www.facebook.com/AwarenessAct/videos/1428558230492043/
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on October 14, 2016, 05:27:05 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: LeoMc on October 14, 2016, 11:41:54 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: RealSpiritof98 on October 15, 2016, 01:29:12 AM
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??????????????
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Íseal agus crua isteach a on October 15, 2016, 03:43:53 AM
Exactly that. Wesley Clark told the truth on Democracy now with Amy Goodman. Seven Countries!!

https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 11, 2018, 10:56:46 PM
17 years!!!
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: sid waddell on September 11, 2018, 11:17:46 PM
Gemma O'Doherty and her supporters know THE TRUTH!
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Syferus on September 11, 2018, 11:42:03 PM
Why the fûck is there a 9/11 truther thread on this board.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: sid waddell on September 11, 2018, 11:52:40 PM

Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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....
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: heganboy on September 12, 2018, 05:22:17 AM
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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 12, 2018, 07:41:06 AM
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..

Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: trailer on September 12, 2018, 10:28:57 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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!
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 10:38:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Dire Ear on September 12, 2018, 11:14:40 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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Keyser soze on September 12, 2018, 11:23:45 AM
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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: trailer on September 12, 2018, 11:26:17 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: LeoMc on September 12, 2018, 12:00:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Dire Ear on September 12, 2018, 12:24:22 PM
Thanks trailer
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: BennyCake on September 12, 2018, 01:58:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Bord na Mona man on September 12, 2018, 04:26:13 PM
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...
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: sid waddell on September 12, 2018, 04:40:21 PM
Amazing too how people who believe the conspiracy theories about September 11th tend to believe in a raft of other similar conspiracy theories.

Amazing.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: BennyCake on September 12, 2018, 05:07:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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 😳😳
Then they export arms to the Saudis in the 100's of billions😳😳

Nothing to see here......move along now.....
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 12, 2018, 07:24:27 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 12, 2018, 07:29:58 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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 07:43:57 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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 12, 2018, 08:01:42 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/
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: sid waddell on September 12, 2018, 08:44:10 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 08:48:34 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 12, 2018, 08:52:04 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)
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 12, 2018, 08:58:57 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 09:05:04 PM
Friday 14th....having flown via Jeddah
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 12, 2018, 09:11:30 PM
Friday 14th....having flown via Jeddah

So after US airspace reopened.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 09:12:56 PM
Friday 14th....having flown via Jeddah

So after US airspace reopened.

No, he left US on 13th
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 12, 2018, 09:23:57 PM
Friday 14th....having flown via Jeddah

So after US airspace reopened.

No, he left US on 13th

US Airspace opened on the morning of September 13th
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 09:29:12 PM
Friday 14th....having flown via Jeddah

So after US airspace reopened.

No, he left US on 13th

US Airspace opened on the morning of September 13th

Ok
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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/

Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Insane Bolt on September 12, 2018, 09:40:49 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/

Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 12, 2018, 10:16:03 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/
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Esmarelda on September 12, 2018, 10:27:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 12, 2018, 11:55:06 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 13, 2018, 12:23:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Insane Bolt on September 13, 2018, 08:32:12 AM
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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: HiMucker on September 13, 2018, 09:10:23 AM
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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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.

Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Taylor on September 13, 2018, 10:52:44 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.

Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Snapchap on September 13, 2018, 10:59:57 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Esmarelda on September 13, 2018, 11:00:59 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: trailer on September 13, 2018, 11:05:49 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Dire Ear on September 13, 2018, 11:07:55 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 !!
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: trailer on September 13, 2018, 11:18:51 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: trailer on September 13, 2018, 11:39:31 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> 
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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/)
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: trailer on September 13, 2018, 12:38:27 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Esmarelda on September 13, 2018, 01:12:33 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Fionntamhnach on September 13, 2018, 01:22:20 PM
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?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: BennyCake on September 13, 2018, 01:38:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: trailer on September 13, 2018, 01:57:22 PM
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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: thebigfella on September 13, 2018, 02:10:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Snapchap on September 13, 2018, 02:20:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: north_antrim_hound on September 13, 2018, 02:25:44 PM
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 
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Fionntamhnach on September 13, 2018, 02:32:48 PM

Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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. 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Jell 0 Biafra on September 13, 2018, 02:36:28 PM
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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Insane Bolt on September 13, 2018, 02:37:48 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Snapchap on September 13, 2018, 02:46:16 PM
There is no comparison between allegations of collusion in the wee six and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: J70 on September 13, 2018, 03:09:55 PM
There is no comparison between allegations of collusion in the wee six and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: trailer on September 13, 2018, 03:23:36 PM
There is no comparison between allegations of collusion in the wee six and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: BennyCake on September 13, 2018, 03:54:57 PM
There is no comparison between allegations of collusion in the wee six and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 13, 2018, 04:04:49 PM
There is no comparison between allegations of collusion in the wee six and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
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”."
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Snapchap on September 13, 2018, 04:18:24 PM
There is no comparison between allegations of collusion in the wee six and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: trailer on September 13, 2018, 04:19:38 PM
There is no comparison between allegations of collusion in the wee six and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Hardy on September 13, 2018, 04:32:17 PM
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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Hardy on September 13, 2018, 04:42:00 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 13, 2018, 05:14:53 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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Jell 0 Biafra on September 13, 2018, 05:18:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Insane Bolt on September 13, 2018, 05:31:47 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: J70 on September 13, 2018, 05:32:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Jell 0 Biafra on September 13, 2018, 05:39:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: omaghjoe on September 13, 2018, 07:13:36 PM
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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 13, 2018, 07:16:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 13, 2018, 07:22:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Jell 0 Biafra on September 13, 2018, 07:37:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: BennyCake on September 14, 2018, 01:30:20 PM
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)
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 14, 2018, 02:13:04 PM
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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Keyser soze on September 14, 2018, 02:26:13 PM
Bennycake you should change your first name to Fruit.  ;D
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: trailer on September 14, 2018, 03:40:14 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 14, 2018, 04:17:14 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


Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: J70 on September 14, 2018, 04:18:44 PM
A building doesn't fall into it's own footprint unless it's been wired with explosives.

Que?? ???
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: trailer on September 14, 2018, 05:12:10 PM

Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 14, 2018, 05:20:15 PM
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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Tony Baloney on September 14, 2018, 05:28:28 PM
Bennycake you should change your first name to Fruit.  ;D
Good work there sir.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: give her dixie on September 14, 2018, 11:38:35 PM
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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: sid waddell on September 15, 2018, 12:16:10 AM


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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: give her dixie on September 15, 2018, 01:06:45 AM


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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 15, 2018, 05:28:15 AM
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/)
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: sid waddell on September 15, 2018, 08:38:34 AM


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.

Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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?




 
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: LCohen on September 16, 2018, 08:34:16 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Hardy on September 16, 2018, 08:42:07 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: sid waddell on September 16, 2018, 11:30:56 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.



Very true and no one talks about the massacres of 30 million Germans.

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.


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.

Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same shekel.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: give her dixie on September 16, 2018, 10:52:29 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: sid waddell on September 16, 2018, 11:34:28 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: give her dixie on September 16, 2018, 11:51:20 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: sid waddell on September 17, 2018, 12:06:05 AM


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.





Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: give her dixie on September 17, 2018, 01:05:03 AM


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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 18, 2018, 09:46:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 18, 2018, 10:30:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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.



Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 19, 2018, 01:35:28 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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 19, 2018, 01:58:57 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: omaghjoe on September 19, 2018, 03:28:36 PM
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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 19, 2018, 09:15:07 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: sid waddell on September 19, 2018, 10:02:28 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 19, 2018, 10:10:44 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.  ::)
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Baile an tuaigh on September 20, 2018, 12:56:36 AM
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

 

Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 20, 2018, 02:55:58 AM
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/
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Seamus on September 20, 2018, 04:08:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: LeoMc on September 20, 2018, 10:25:49 AM
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!
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: BennyCake on September 20, 2018, 01:20:01 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Seamus on September 20, 2018, 01:21:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: dec on September 20, 2018, 01:58:06 PM
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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: LeoMc on September 20, 2018, 02:05:30 PM
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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: screenexile on September 20, 2018, 02:21:24 PM
Is it time to close this thread maybe??
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: seafoid on September 20, 2018, 02:34:17 PM
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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Seamus on September 20, 2018, 02:45:42 PM
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
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
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on September 20, 2018, 02:47:35 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Tony Baloney on September 20, 2018, 02:54:07 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: trailer on September 20, 2018, 03:47:54 PM

Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: J70 on September 20, 2018, 05:22:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: omaghjoe on September 20, 2018, 05:53:42 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.
Title: Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
Post by: Eamonnca1 on September 20, 2018, 06:03:59 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.  ::)