Wtc 7, It Own Story Of Controled Demolition And Cover Up.

[Booko]

Oh I don't think it's THAT fake, Booko. I'm sure the hijackings were real, well - I can't be sure, I wasn't there of course - but I have no reasons to believe they weren't real.

But these buildings collapses, it makes my mind crazy. I just cannot understand how it happened?

And there is a fuss from the experts, at least in Europe. I haven't seen a program that claimed the buildings came down because of terrorists in years. It's always mentioning this controversy instead.

If you happen to run across anything, please send a link. But don't put yourself out looking for anything.

 

[Matt]

I have personally seen large metal columns melt in fires that didn't even contain jet fuel at all. I work in one of Australia's main defence buildings and i happen to know that there is a great deal of difference between a bomb hitting a structure, and a commercial airline hitting a structure.

The reason the terrorists chose domestic airlines is because they contain a full tank of fuel, and they knew it would do more damage.

How about one of you give me a reason as to why America would sacrifice it's two most important buildings and the lives of all those inside. Give me a well thought out reason, not just something ridiculous.

 

[cardero]

I have personally seen large metal columns melt in fires that didn't even contain jet fuel at all. I work in one of Australia's main defence buildings and i happen to know that there is a great deal of difference between a bomb hitting a structure, and a commercial airline hitting a structure.

The reason the terrorists chose domestic airlines is because they contain a full tank of fuel, and they knew it would do more damage.

Yes but one thing that the pilots didn't account for was accuracy and physics. If you look at one of the videos when the plane impacts the tower, most of the explosion that would be caused by jet fuel is diverted outside of the tower missing its intended purpose. Also most of the physical damage that the fires could have done had subsided quickly, which wouldn’t give the towers (which were built accordingly to withstand such an incident) a chance to collapse like that in that matter of time. Please refer to past fires of buildings built with lesser materials that have withstood fires burning for 10 hours or more that have never collapsed.

Matt writes: How about one of you give me a reason as to why America would sacrifice it's two most important buildings and the lives of all those inside. Give me a well thought out reason, not just something ridiculous.

In order to do this we would have to have exact knowledge of what agenda the people who run America may have had. In the past, public officials have not been fourth coming in explaining why they do the things they do. In fact most Americans do not realize the decisions that are involved behind closed doors. Keep in mind that as a representative of any country, it might be difficult for you to perpetrate something like this on your own people or country or possibly accept any reason why a fellow member of your nation would do something like this but I think you may have answered your own question Matt.
What is the most important structure (read: target) in the U.S. that would make an effectual impact on a nation? As for the lives, well you couldn’t very well plan a War On Terrorism if no one was harmed, could you? The fear of death is not enough, you need something to avenge and our nation would not allow this country to go to war for the toppling of a few buildings. In fact the person or people who perpetrated this act most likely felt that as long as it wasn’t their building or their lives, both costs were expendable to the cause of their agenda (whatever that may be). Someone correct me if I am mistaken but the owner of the twin towers was properly insured (two weeks before the incident) and collected handsomely for this occurrence.

 

[egroen]

From my limited understanding, the demolitions required to bring down buildings of this size are simply not "hidden". They would take weeks of time to set up and require immense, visible wiring. Nevermind they would somehow have to survive the inferno of the planes crashing into them.

Popular Mechanics "Debunking the 9/11 Myths:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

-Erin

 

[Booko]

Someone correct me if I am mistaken but the owner of the twin towers was properly insured (two weeks before the incident) and collected handsomely for this occurrence.

All excellent questions, cardero, but I'm left wondering why the plane that crashed into the Pentagon would be allowed to have such an effect as it did. For the purposes of any gov't trying to destroy our own buildings, it would've been sufficient for that plane to have made a near miss, and been "shot down" by our glorious military anti-aircraft guns.

We would have been sufficiently outraged at that outcome along with the destruction of the Towers.

Quite frankly, when it comes to attacks on our own soil, we are not used to it and likely experience greater outrage than in other countries, because we think for some reason our soil should be immune from such things. That sort of violence happens "over there." We are just too good for those things to happen right here, and we are swift to anger when we also face the fact that our illusions of invincibility are not quite correct. It's a hit on the national ego, and we respond accordingly.

 

[cardero]

Booko writes: All excellent questions, cardero, but I'm left wondering why the plane that crashed into the Pentagon would be allowed to have such an effect as it did. For the purposes of any gov't trying to destroy our own buildings, it would've been sufficient for that plane to have made a near miss, and been "shot down" by our glorious military anti-aircraft guns.

Again we would have to consider who is behind this, what agenda and what impression the perpetrators were going for. We could also wonder why a terrorist would not have chosen the White House as a suitable terrorist target. It would certainly have made an impression or statement about what our enemies thought about our nation’s leader but on the other hand, if it was an American plot, it would also garner sympathy and respect for the president who may have lost his home and loved ones which would give a reason for a nation to stand behind this war. I do not want to say “well, maybe next time” but it is very difficult to understand the reasons behind why any of this happened without more information. What I do understand is that whoever perpetrated this, planned it very well (leaving very little room for error) and that the plan could still be unfolding.

Booko writes: We would have been sufficiently outraged at that outcome along with the destruction of the Towers.

Whoever plotted September 11, didn’t think so, which is why other targets were probably chosen. Whether this was a tactic to throw us off some trail or make it fair by targeting an official structure, one cannot be sure. You also have to re-imagine the different degrees in our government to understand why our government is not one organized hive mind. There are things that the NSA knows that the CIA doesn't. There are things that the President knows that Congress doesn't. There are things that the FBI knows that our local police aren't informed about. And there are things that Senators know that Governers don't. There are also things that Mayors know that Trustees don't.

Booko writes: Quite frankly, when it comes to attacks on our own soil, we are not used to it and likely experience greater outrage than in other countries, because we think for some reason our soil should be immune from such things. That sort of violence happens "over there." We are just too good for those things to happen right here, and we are swift to anger when we also face the fact that our illusions of invincibility are not quite correct. It's a hit on the national ego, and we respond accordingly.

And I think that this was the desired impression the perpetrators were going for. There are two thoughts that I have about this. One is that if this occurrence happened here, why are we over in another country fighting a war when the problem seems to have happened here? Two, if the terrorists do not agree with our country and they truly dislike us for what we have and who we are, and they have already made their intentions and existence known, why aren’t we experiencing a barrage of terrorist acts? I do not wish for anyone to be harmed or killed in this manner but I am at loss of why these acts have happened now and why they have ceased in our country and why they are not more common since September 11, 2001. Did they run out of funding? Do they not hate us that much anymore? Are they taking a break? Did they ever exist at all? The whole occurence seems (for lack of a better term) staged but I am not sure for whose benefit.

 

[anyscientologist]

Booko:

The difference is wether you can proove any of those "conspiracies" false. are you trained on science? University or High School?

The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion.

Philosophy 101.

Yes, I have degrees in science.

And?

Saying that Mr. Watson has no credbility is an assertion, and so you must proove it becuase "The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion."

Having a degree on high school or science will help you with the proof.

 

[Ody]

Thank you, I have learned to not take anyone who doesn't have the creativity to choose an Avatar seriously.

 

[anyscientologist]

Wolf:

It makes absolutly no since to make destroy a building that way.

It made sence to Silverstein who made billions in insurance money from the colapse of 7 and teh two towers. Yet he has admitted himself that he destroyed at least one of those buildings.

Danish Press: WTC 7 "had to be destroyed" on 9/11
Steve Watson / Prisonplanet | May 24 2006
According to an article today in Danish publication Ekstra Bladet, Building 7 was intentionally destroyed on September 11th. (See below for full translation)
Reporting on the re-opening of the new building 7, journalist Mikkel Selin reports that "The 52 floor skyscraper World Trade Center nr. 7 was so badly damaged from the terror attack in 2001, that it had to be destroyed."
These comments echo those of lease owner Larry Silverstein who said in a 2003 PBS documentary that on 9/11 he had made the decision to "pull" the building, a construction industry term meaning implode with explosives.
According the the official story Building 7 fell late in the afternoon on 9/11 due to fires within that had started when debris from the trade towers fell onto it.
We have consistently exposed how damage to 7 was minimal and the fires within were small and isolated. In addition the New York mayor's emergency command bunker was housed within the building on the 23rd floor and was designed to withstand fires that could burn for days.
Regardless of these facts it became only the third steel building in history to collapse from fire damage after the two towers.
The collapse of 7 is consistent with a controlled demolition and is one of the biggest smoking guns of 9/11 government complicity.
Silverstein has made billions in insurance money from the collapse of 7 and the two towers, yet he has admitted himself that he destroyed at least one of those buildings.
It would have taken weeks to lace the buildings with explosives, indicating that this had taken place prior to the attacks on September 11th.
Furthermore, destroying a building with explosives needs to be carefully planned in terms of containing possible pollutants and harmful toxins within the building materials.
Indeed, The vacant 41-story former Deutsche Bank AG building, that was much closer to the two towers but not owned by Silverstein, still stands at the site today because destroying it improperly would severely contaminate the area.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wtc_had_to_be_destroyed_on_911_danish_press.htm

Capture a few airplanes, kill hundreds, attack a non-related building, head towards another, fail,

That's been planned before:

<H4 id=feature_author>By David Ruppe

N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001 In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

</H4>
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

and after thousands are dead, set off the explosions,

Not only the exploded buildings gave big money for Silverstein, also the WTC 7 is said to have been the bunker to conduct the terror atack, and the evidence had to be destroyed imploding the building.

Former German Minister Says Building 7 Used To Run 9/11 Attack
Guide the planes in, then destroy the crime scene
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | April 21 2006

Former Helmut Schmidt cabinet member, 25-year German Parliamentarian and global intelligence expert Andreas Von Bülow says that the 9/11 attack was run by the highest levels of the US intelligence apparatus using WTC Building 7 as a command bunker which was later demolished in order to destroy the crime scene.
Speaking to The Alex Jones Show on the GCN Radio Network, Von Bülow said that "the official story is so wrong, it must be an inside job."
...

Von Bülow also touched upon the implausible collapse of the buildings.
"The towers came down in the velocity of free fall which is totally impossible, they fall down in 8, 9, or 10 seconds, the pancake theory is ridiculous," he said.
Von Bülow also highlighted the fact that there were 67 successful intercepts of errant aircraft in the year of 2001 before 9/11 and yet four planes were allowed to veer wildly off course without any being intercepted on that one day.
Rudolph Giuliani opened a $13 million emergency Command Center (pictured) on the 23rd floor of World Trade Center Building 7 in June 1999 in part to respond to and manage terrorist attacks.

Von Bülow referenced the command bunker in Building 7, calling it the "optimal place" to run the attacks using remote control technology to guide the planes in and then destroying the crime scene by imploding the building.
"There were two procedures, one was flying in the aircraft the second was the explosions," he said.
When asked precisely which parties carried out the attack Von Bülow said it must have been a "very small group" within the CIA with the help of Saudi Arabian and Pakistani secret service intelligence.
Von Bülow outlined his view that one reason for the execution of 9/11 was to provide the justification for US military bases in the near and Middle East to be built in anticipation for a future confrontation with China, whom the Neo-Cons believe have grown too powerful and need to have their geopolitical wings clipped.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wtc7_german_minister_says_building_7_was_hq.htm

go to war, and have even thousands more killed.

Ever heard of the Alternative 3 Video?

Don't you think someone that worked at the trade centers would have seen the explosives put into place?

Don't you think that if they speak out, they will be murdered just like many withnesses in the Kennedy Assasination, and like many withnesses in the Enron Scandal?

Are Enron Bankers/Witnesses Being Murdered?
Steve Watson / Infowars | July 12 2006
With the latest revelation that a body discovered in North-east London is that of a banker intimately connected with the Enron fraud case, one has to begin to ask why are there so many "unexplained" deaths linked to this case?
The BBC is reporting that London Police are treating the death of Neil Coulbeck, who worked for the Royal Bank of Scotland until 2004, as "unexplained".

http://www.infowars.net/articles/july2006/130706Enron.htm​

 

[Booko]

Booko:



Saying that Mr. Watson has no credbility is an assertion, and so you must proove it becuase "The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion."

Having a degree on high school or science will help you with the proof.

You and Mr. Watson are the ones making the assertion, last time I checked.

Havez le fun.

Oh, btw, I've asked several questions that you've conveniently bypassed.

Perhaps it's because your infowars and prisonplanet sources also conveniently sidestep the flaws in their little theory, so you have nothing to answer with. :sarcastic

 

[Jon]

but I'm left wondering why the plane that crashed into the Pentagon would be allowed to have such an effect as it did.

It's just a miracle that it was the side of the Pentagon that was under renovations at the time that was hit by the "plane"

 

[Jon]

The first "hole" in the Pentagon was only 14-16 feet in diameter. There is footage of it before the wall came down.
There is no room for a Jet Airliner to go through.

 

[Matt]

The reason the hole was so small in the Pentagon is because when a plane hits at the speed that plane did, the wings instantly fold backwards. Parts of the engine were found also, as as for the jet fuel mostly missing the twin towers. When fire crews first arrived there were people on the first floor completely engulfed in flames. There was so much jet fuel, that it streamed down the elevator shaft and burned people on the bottom floor.

Someone also mentioned that i don't like to think that my nation would do such a thing, well im an Australian, not American. We lost many people in the Bali bombings, but we don't look for hidden reasons or answers when they are both right before our eyes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It wouldn't make any since to destroy the buildings for money either. I do not know what investments, or other buildings being leased the trade center owner has, but even if his assets are enough to keep pulling in money until he dies, why would you destroy one your biggest sources of income, for a large lump sum now, instead of having the slightly smaller but still large amounts of money comming in from people renting the office spaces?

 

[Booko]

Whoever plotted September 11, didn’t think so, which is why other targets were probably chosen. Whether this was a tactic to throw us off some trail or make it fair by targeting an official structure, one cannot be sure.

I disagree. Were I going for a spectacular show of terrorism, going for multiple targets is exactly what I'd do. This is especially so if you think there's a chance some of your operations might be stopped. If you plan for 4 -- at least 1 should be "successful."

You also have to re-imagine the different degrees in our government to understand why our government is not one organized hive mind. There are things that the NSA knows that the CIA doesn't. There are things that the President knows that Congress doesn't. There are things that the FBI knows that our local police aren't informed about. And there are things that Senators know that Governers don't. There are also things that Mayors know that Trustees don't.

All the more reason to think there's no gov't conspiracy behind it all. Something of this magnitude is not planned by a small group of guys with cigars in some back room someplace. It requires a number of people on many fronts, with coordination, to set up a conspiracy. Even the terrorists were not limited to 20 people -- there was a much wider support network, including the dude who worked for military intelligence for years, all the while geting info our our SOPs that was useful for terrorist planning.

There are two thoughts that I have about this. One is that if this occurrence happened here, why are we over in another country fighting a war when the problem seems to have happened here?

You mean you don't think we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here?

Two, if the terrorists do not agree with our country and they truly dislike us for what we have and who we are, and they have already made their intentions and existence known, why aren’t we experiencing a barrage of terrorist acts?

I don't buy the idea that "they hate our freedoms." I don't think terrorists give a rat's ear what we do here...they care when we go supporting their own despotic gov'ts and when we try to extend our hegemony into their areas.

If someone was buildling bases in the US, filled our gov't with their puppets, and that's the worst they did, wouldn't we be royalled peeved? I'd bet we would. Some of us would even be snarky to take up arms against the "occupiers."

Sheesh, we have small militias right now, and our gov't isn't even despotic. Imagine how the ranks would swell if we had another country intruding in our business and setting up an oppressive puppet gov't here. About the only thing that would stop me from considering taking up arms myself in such a circumstance would be my religious beliefs.

I do not wish for anyone to be harmed or killed in this manner but I am at loss of why these acts have happened now and why they have ceased in our country and why they are not more common since

September 11, 2001. Did they run out of funding? Do they not hate us that much anymore? Are they taking a break? Did they ever exist at all? The whole occurence seems (for lack of a better term) staged but I am not sure for whose benefit.

We invaded Afghanistan, which broke up a base of support (at least somewhat). Other nations are working rather effectively at various interdiction efforts, like tracking the transfer of funds, so they've had to go to a more old-fashioned (but slower) method.

And the latest events with a group trying to blow up planes destined for here tells me they haven't given up.

Oh, I'm not ready to scream RED ALERT to panic people and get elected like certain entities are, but we are very stupid indeed if we don't pay attention.

 

[Booko]

It's just a miracle that it was the side of the Pentagon that was under renovations at the time that was hit by the "plane"

It's a one in five chance. Big deal.

If you talk to pilot who's flown in the area, he could tell you why the odds are even better.

Unfortunately, Google Earth won't do much, since the area is intentionally grainy.

 

[greatcalgarian]

These are information I posted in an old thread. Many of the points raised by pro-government conspiracy have been aptly dealt with in the links provided.


Do not let just one video influence you. Do a bit more research, go and spend about 7 nights reading all the following links, then decide for yourself.
For beginner's, read the popular mechanics first, then read the debunk from the conspiracy theorists.
Then read the Government 9/11 commission report. You may have to spend 6 hours reading the whole document. Then go into all those conspiracy theorists page to see how they tear the government report apart, and the silence the government is keeping (a very good technique and strategy, when you cannot refute a conspiracy theory, just keep quiet, and most people will then believe that the conspiracy theory is false)

This is a good starting point for general background information:
http://web.mid-day.com/news/world/20...ber/118397.htm

Then read the infamous Popular Mechanics:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...42.html?page=1
Then the debunk from various 9/11 conspiracists:
http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/debunkPopMech.php
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_me..._mechanics.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/indexg.html

You may also like to see the Scientific America:
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
And the Government 9/11 commission report:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
And challenged by some families:
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=index&catid= &topic=18
And the WTC report (including debunk):
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm
And University of Sydney supporting the US official story:
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
And again the Government NIST report (pdf, you can save to your harddrive and read it at your leisure time):
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Publi...0505_final.pdf
And a relatively layman refute:
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_media.html
And Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D. [send him mail], is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and his view:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
And these may not be truely German engineers:
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas...e/defaulte.htm

And this is a counter-counter-counter conspiracy, which I am confused and not sure whether it is for or against the Government, read it for your own pleasure:
http://www.breakfornews.com/TheCIAInternetFakes.htm


Many thousand more webs, a few which I have browsed through:
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/FrontPage.shtml
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html
http://www.st911.org/
http://globaloutlook.ca/
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.kin...ome.html-.html
http://www.oilempire.us/911.html
http://www.reopen911.org/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...eme&themeId=18
http://www.911truth.org/
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

This loosechange video from
http://www.loosechange911.com/
is just a very cunningly summarized version of the more non-disputable arguements from a whole lot of conspiracy theory.

http://www.interlinkbooks.com/BooksN...rl_Harbor.html
David Ray Griffin

Read about those conspiracists, including scientist, engineers, theologists etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Reynolds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Von_Buelow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McMurtry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Sheen


Quote:

All of that [the US military role of the 20th century] changed on Sept. 11&#8230; We saw on 9- 11 nineteen men hijack aircraft with airline tickets and box cutters and killed more than 3,000 Americans in a couple of hours. Richard Cheney , March 2003.
In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted &#8230;they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie&#8230; It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Adolf Hitler, 1925

Why do so many accept the &#8220;official story&#8221; of 9/11 uncritically &#8211; that a few hijackers (per plane) alone overpowered well-trained airline pilots using box-cutters and hijacked four separate airliners, then brought down the World Trade Center buildings and struck the Pentagon &#8211; all without being intercepted by military jets? Americans have been told this story over and over and most seem to accept it without scrutiny. To challenge this story is to risk being smeared with the dreaded conspiracy-theorist label. It is easier to dismiss without much consideration the notion that the official story may be wrong or that our leaders may have known about the impending attacks before hand and misled us.

If you want to have a free conscience, and be sure that you have not been hijacked by the CIA, the Government, or the media, try to do a serious research work yourself, just like what the video urge you to do.
By the way, I suspect the main motive of producing that video is for financial profit.

See this earlier thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=559702#post559702

 

[Matt]

The reason America doesn't argue with the conspiricy theorists, is because you can't. They make up a theory for every event. Anyone with a creative imagination can do this in 5 minutes and make it sound believable.

And why should they defend themselves against such disgracful, unpatriotic ****. The majority of these people have no expertees in the matters they are talking about.

Look at half of the inbreds Michael Moore is putting in his documentaries. They know nothing about nothing. And Michael Moore is just one of many. He is also a proven liar.

Anyone can get on the internet and start a page about some conspiricy theory. You are quick to doubt the government, but why do you completely fail to doubt these fools and their theories, which are completely groundless. They have no concrete evidence whatsoever to back up their fantasies.

 

[Matt]

Well trained pilots, what would you do with a razor to your throat? Their conspiricy theories completely lack any concrete evidence whatsoever, and dispite this, you hang on every word they say no matter how ridiculous, but doubt the government.

Anyone with a good imagination can create a believable conspiricy theory for anything in 5 minutes. These people are not experts in the matters they are argueing, they are simply fools with an acts to grind.

 

[anyscientologist]

It's just a miracle that it was the side of the Pentagon that was under renovations at the time that was hit by the "plane"

Good John, that enlightenning discovery would explain a lot.