9/11; Never forget.

[Glaucus]

Wtf, are you trying to say there was no media attention and very few people around just 6hours after WTC 1+2 collapse.

As above go do some reading.

Prepped for years. So they had cut through columns, ripped floors and cladding out and no one noticed. After years all the wiring looms where functional and explosives hadn't degraded.
But you think wtc1+2 fell normally, so why no trigger it at a better time, how did they know where the huge damage to wtc7 would occur.

 

[Fr0dders]

Really really really sit down and think very hard about the crap you've just wrote.
Lets pretend I've got some very dodgy stuff on my PC and some papers I don't want anybody to ever see.
Do you think me collapsing my house would be suffice to hide the evidence?

We'll put that one to bed.

Who knows what was in there that they might want to conceal rather than have the worlds media watch them remove or whatever

Who says it's purely informational ?

I just don't think it's unthinkable that they put some kind of measure like this in place after the WTC was bombed last time ?

Nobody was killed when WTC7 collapsed. Why was it so unthinkable ?

 

[Glaucus]

Nobody was killed when WTC7 collapsed. Why was it so unthinkable ?

lack of evidence, well not even that. Evidence that shows it was destroyed in such a way.

No one died because it was evacuated as was the whole area.

 

[Fr0dders]

Wtf, are you trying to say there was no media attention and very few people around just 6hours after WTC 1+2 collapse.

As above go do some reading.

Prepped for years. So they had cut through columns, ripped floors and cladding out and no one noticed. After years all the wiring looms where functional and explosives hadn't degraded.
But you think wtc1+2 fell normally, so why no trigger it at a better time, how did they know where the huge damage to wtc7 would occur.

I'm just saying I'm open to both sides of the argument

I just don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility. Who would honestly think anything of some repair men doing drilling and "repairs" say 10 years before 911 before everybody got paranoid

lack of evidence, well not even that. Evidence that shows it was destroyed in such a way.

No one died because it was evacuated as was the whole area.

What better time to commit a controlled demolition on a building that has something to hide ?When it's all evacuated and you aren't going to harm anyone
The US has been known to commit all kinds of subterfuge In the past.

 

[Glaucus]

I'm just saying I'm open to both sides of the argument

The US has been known to commit all kinds of subterfuge In the past.

I just don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility. Who would honestly think anything of some repair men doing drilling and "repairs" say 10 years before 911 before everybody got paranoid

As I said go read up on it, it is beyond the realms of possibility once you understand and look at the evidence.

Everyone, knows governments are capable of terrible acts, but the evidence does not support this.

Again do you have any idea what preparing a building for demolition requires, that explosives have use by dates and degrade with time.

I mean part of preparing buildings is pre cutting load bearing volume and removing most of the strength. They did that 10 years prior to an event they didn't know was going to happen, seeing as you accept wtc1&2 happens from terrorists.

 

[Fr0dders]

There are tons of evidence for both view points

I don't know enough about demolition / structural engineering to pass judgement to say who is right.

So for now I'll be open to both viewpoints

 

[Glaucus]

There are tons of evidence for both view points

There really isn't at all.

How does sagging of certain areas of the building and collapse of the roof "veranda" coincide with demolition.
Why would you get this sagging with pre arranged explosives. You just wouldn't. If you would care to actually go read up on it, look at whatteh photo and video evidence shows us. Then you would realise how silly controlled demolition is.

 

[cm1179]

WTC building 7 collapsed long after the world's media had turned their attention elsewhere.

Given the CIA, the DOD, the FBI etc.. all had offices there, i don't think its entirely unreasonable that the building had been rigged with charges years ago, possibly after the first WTC bombing to demolish it in the event of it being compromised and damaged.

I don't believe that the twin towers themselves were rigged, that was plain for all to see what happened. But i don't think its beyond belief that building 7 was demolished using a controlled demolition to prevent the secrets inside from behind discovered.

Wait till everybody gets out, make sure the world isn't looking, then get the director of the FBI to press the button that demolishes it.

.......riiiiiiiiiight

 

[anything I don't mind]

The film features cutting-edge 9/11 evidence from more than 50 experts in their fields – high-rise architects, structural engineers, physicists, chemical engineers, firefighters, metallurgists, explosives experts, controlled demolition technicians, and more. They are each highly qualified. Several have Ph.D’s, including renowned scientist, Lynn Margulis who was awarded the National Medal of Science, and who exposes in this film the fraud of NIST and discusses how the scientific method should have been applied to the destruction of evidence and to the high temperature incendiaries in the WTC dust samples.

Released a few days ago, not sure if already posted.

ae911truth.org new documentary. 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out (2 hours 19 mins)

 

[Moothead2]

Probably been said before, but how to WTC7 actually catch fire in the first place? Debris from the original impact or was it after the towers fell or something else?

 

[Glaucus]

Probably been said before, but how to WTC7 actually catch fire in the first place? Debris from the original impact or was it after the towers fell or something else?

From the collapse, also sustaining some hefty damage and burnt uncontrolled for almost 7hours.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

What better time to commit a controlled demolition on a building that has something to hide ?When it's all evacuated and you aren't going to harm anyone
The US has been known to commit all kinds of subterfuge In the past.

Use your brain.
1000s of workers had to pick their way through the debris of WTC7 therefore having the chance to come across anything and everything.
However this is where you will say that the 1000s of workers were all FBI and CIA agents.

 

[Fr0dders]

I was under the impression WTC building 7 was left to burn uncontrolled which is what led to it falling down.

Surely if the building was covered in 1000s of workers, they would have been attempting to put the fire out ?

 

[magick]

WTC building 7 collapsed long after the world's media had turned their attention elsewhere.

Given the CIA, the DOD, the FBI etc.. all had offices there, i don't think its entirely unreasonable that the building had been rigged with charges years ago, possibly after the first WTC bombing to demolish it in the event of it being compromised and damaged.

I don't believe that the twin towers themselves were rigged, that was plain for all to see what happened. But i don't think its beyond belief that building 7 was demolished using a controlled demolition to prevent the secrets inside from behind discovered.

Wait till everybody gets out, make sure the world isn't looking, then get the director of the FBI to press the button that demolishes it.

There was media attention. The BBC reported that it had collapsed 20 minutes before it did fueling conspiracies that a press release had gone out from the CIA to early. Still to this day they've never said where the report that the tower collapsed came from. I'm guessing the CIA

If you watch the above video you can see Tower 7 behind her head.

 

[RDM]

There was media attention. The BBC reported that it had collapsed 20 minutes before it did fueling conspiracies that a press release had gone out from the CIA to early. Still to this day they've never said where the report that the tower collapsed came from. I'm guessing the CIA

Choose the most logical explanation:

1. During a very confusing and hectic day when news companies are trying to get as much information out as possible as quickly as possible someone mistakenly said a building had collapsed instead of might collapse.

2. During a well run and orchestrated CIA False Flag/Information burial operation involving long and detailed planning, utmost secrecy and a near godlike ability to plan, trigger and hide events a CIA analyst accidentally released a press release prior to pressing the big red button that brought down WTC7. A massive conspiracy involving many hundreds of people blown wide open by a clerical error...

As an aside, of the many varied theories about the events on 9/11 which ones do you actually believe (obviously you cannot believe them all as some are contradictory).

How were WTC1 and WTC2 brought down?
How was WTC7 brought down?
How was United 93 brought down?
What happened at the Pentagon?
Who was behind it all and why?

 

[Glaucus]

I was under the impression WTC building 7 was left to burn uncontrolled which is what led to it falling down.

Surely if the building was covered in 1000s of workers, they would have been attempting to put the fire out ?

Not dying, 1000s picking through the debris. The debris was scoured for personal artefacts and minute human remains. Not the best way to hide info, when a paper shredder and harddrive wipe is so simple and effective.

As for the report you had news crews who had no idea what building was what. Anyone would think this is the first time media reported something wrong in live events. Or are the other hundreds of events staged by CIA as well.

Lol magick.

 

[Fr0dders]

Its stuff like that

That doesn't prove the theory, but casts enough doubt in my mind to think they may have had a point.

Yes it could just have been a mistake, but as well as all the other odd things that happened that day ? It seems unlikely.

Thats not to say its impossible though. Its more than unlikely that i will win the lottery at odds of 16 million to one or whatever. But somebody does it ..

So from where i'm sat, i can see merit to both sides of the argument.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

That doesn't prove the theory, but casts enough doubt in my mind to think they may have had a point.

You need to be a better critical thinker

Yes it could just have been a mistake, but as well as all the other odd things that happened that day ? It seems unlikely.

This is false logic. The day wasn't a 'normal' day by any stretch of the imagination, so by nature most events within the day are going to be 'odd', aren't they?

So from where i'm sat, i can see merit to both sides of the argument.

How depressing (if you mean to say they have equal merit).

 

[.Lethal]

They went beyond milking this incident years ago.

I always find it quite funny that the americans basically paint a bullseye on there faces every year since. Honestly all it would take is more attacks on 9/11 and the amount of panic it would generate each year on the run up to that day would be tremendous. Maybe I'm just being cynical...

Not cynical imo. I've had enough seeing it every year and frankly I'm not trying to remember. This needs put into perspective with the rest of the events going on in the world.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I was under the impression WTC building 7 was left to burn uncontrolled which is what led to it falling down.

Surely if the building was covered in 1000s of workers, they would have been attempting to put the fire out ?

Yeah, you're right, I'll have to concede on that one.
I reckon 1000s of people trying to put out the fires would not at any time pick up any suspicious items.
It's not in human nature to do that sort of thing.