Hacker group releases '9/11 Papers', says future leaks will 'burn down' US deep state

[dowie]

Yeah that is pretty bad

@deuse look at the context here, you listed the times yourself:

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity"

How on earth have you reached the conclusion "So NIST doesn't even know if the free fall was 1.75 sec or 4.0 seconds."????

If you really did interpret it that way then perhaps you might like to take a look at the above stages you listed noting in particular the end of stage 1 and the start of stage 3.

 

[MookJong]

The semantics about free fall are a ridiculous sideshow.

Why on earth would you demolish WTC7? What would be the reason? Imagine that building had not been damaged and on fire are you saying they still would have blown it up?

Controlled demolition takes drilling and hundreds of meters of cabling, how was this installed without anyone noticing and why would anyone agree to rig a building in such a way?

 

[Freakbro]

Why on earth would you demolish WTC7? What would be the reason?

Wasn't it to do with all the gold that was in the basement and to cover the tracks of all the lorries that had used the ensuing confusion to steal it all?


Or wait, was that the plot to Die Hard 3? It was such a long time ago I get the two muddled....

 

[BF-Bert]

The semantics about free fall are a ridiculous sideshow.

Why on earth would you demolish WTC7? What would be the reason? Imagine that building had not been damaged and on fire are you saying they still would have blown it up?

Controlled demolition takes drilling and hundreds of meters of cabling, how was this installed without anyone noticing and why would anyone agree to rig a building in such a way?

Controlled demolition to simply demolish a building isn't as complicated or time consuming as you may think. The time and complexity come with demolishing in a clean and safe manner.

However I don't think these collapses were demolition jobs.

 

[Nasher]

The fact they are only releasing the "truth" for money makes the whole thing look like scam...

Conspiracy nuts are an easy target.

 

[Nate75]

I don't consider myself to be a CT but really... This just looks like a demolition job to me.

I honestly don't think we will really know what happened here but it just doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Nasher]

Naa it's way to messy to be a demolition job.

Buildings don't fall over like trees when they collapse. They get crushed under their own weight.

 

[Murphy]

If you really did interpret it that way then perhaps you might like to take a look at the above stages you listed noting in particular the end of stage 1 and the start of stage 3.

Just taking note of the word "to" would be a start.

 

[FTM]

so its scammers fleecing gullible conspiracy theorists with made up stuff then

 

[Murphy]

I don't consider myself to be a CT but really... This just looks like a demolition job to me.

I honestly don't think we will really know what happened here but it just doesn't sit well with me.

When you only have part of the picture it's easy to jump to conclusions.

 

[Nate75]

When you only have part of the picture it's easy to jump to conclusions.

Fair enough. It's been a long time since I really looked at all this.

 

[MookJong]

Yes it looks like a demolition.

But why? why destroy that building? If you cannot explain why then the likelihood is that the official answer of fire and structural damage makes a lot more sense.

This disconnect in logic is the thing that conspiracy theorists never answer because they never think about the bigger picture. Even if you believe 9/11 was staged to say start a war in the middle East, why demolish this building a couple of hours after the twin towers fell when the eyes of the world were watching? Would it not make people a bit suspicious?

 

[Screeeech]

But why? why destroy that building? If you cannot explain why then the likelihood is that the official answer of fire and structural damage makes a lot more sense.

Exactly, people seem to forget in their mental ramblings - that two passenger jet planes, heavy with fuel - flew into the buildings, at several hundred miles per hour, causing ungodly amounts of damage to absolutely everything, in a situation never really considered, tested or designed for.

The question I always had was why demolish the buildings using explosives and fly planes into them? surely the planes would be and were enough to do the job, why go and rig the whole area with what would probably have been the biggest operation in demolition ever undertaken, without leaving a single piece of evidence, being seen by anyone, no record of that work, everyone involved staying quiet forever, so on.

Only a stupid person would make claims that any of the WTC buildings were demolished as part of a conspiracy, there's no evidence, there's no motive - but like with all CTs, they ignore the most obvious and reasonable explanation, in favour of unfounded nonsense, because they're stupid.

 

[AndyT]

You do know that is from NIST where it says "Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)"

So NIST doesn't even know if the free fall was 1.75 sec or 4.0 seconds.

Oh dear.

Now we all agree that 1.75 to 4.0 is a range, what are your thoughts?

 

[Dis86]

Oh dear.

Now we all agree that 1.75 to 4.0 is a range, what are your thoughts?

That everyone is wrong and he is right dammit!

 

[Vexr]

But why? why destroy that building? If you cannot explain why then the likelihood is that the official answer of fire and structural damage makes a lot more sense.

My bad, that's the explanation from CT'rs for the Pentagon hit (apparently the plane hit their accounting department, who were involved in the investigation of a $2.3 trillion budget blackhole at the time).

The WTC7 CT explanation was about something else, possibly the '9/11 was arranged in that office' idea.

 

[MookJong]

This might be outdated or debunked information, but I seem to recall an explanation for motive in the destruction of WTC7 was because there was a CIA or FBI office in there handling the investigation of a ~trillion dollar blackhole in the Pentagon's finances.

Yeah heard it all before, I mean anyone who works in an office knows how ridiculous this idea is.

 

[dowie]

This might be outdated or debunked information, but I seem to recall an explanation for motive in the destruction of WTC7 was because there was a CIA or FBI office in there handling the investigation of a ~trillion dollar blackhole in the Pentagon's finances.

Hilarious. And what was the evidence they presented for this narrative?

 

[Vexr]

Honestly can't remember. The claim might actually have been that there was evidence for the 9/11 plot being an inside job in that office. Either way, I never looked into it so I wouldn't be the right person to ask. I agree that it lacks plausibility, but yes, the CT'ers did attribute a motive to the destruction of WTC7, however far-fetched.

 

[mcast]

The stupidity of CTs genuinely depresses me, I thought it was a backwater of America hidden in youtube videos, now it's here in OCuk.