♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 24, 2013 17:48:09 GMT
No burning office equipment could generate the heat neccesary to cause the entire WTC7 building to collapse so neatly like a house of cards. This has never happened before to any burning building.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2013 18:21:48 GMT
I've seen some of the video footage and the reporters at the scene were wondering whether tower 7 had been deliberately demolished. It would have been a totally reasonable thing to do, but doubt if it could have been achieved without the firefighters knowing about it.
If the collapses were strange, it seems even odder that the investigators, who came from a wide variety of backgrounds, were all part of the same cover-up.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 24, 2013 18:28:38 GMT
I've seen some of the video footage and the reporters at the scene were wondering whether tower 7 had been deliberately demolished. It would have been a totally reasonable thing to do, but doubt if it could have been achieved without the firefighters knowing about it. If the collapses were strange, it seems even odder that the investigators, who came from a wide variety of backgrounds, were all part of the same cover-up. Larry Silverstein the leash holder of the WTC seemed to admit that a decision was made to "pull" building 7!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2013 19:40:21 GMT
Life's too short for videos, Anna, but as I said before, a controlled demolition of Tower 7 would have been reasonable. However, it didn't happen. It could not have happened without someone knowing.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 25, 2013 13:46:04 GMT
Life's too short for videos, Anna, but as I said before, a controlled demolition of Tower 7 would have been reasonable. However, it didn't happen. It could not have happened without someone knowing. An approved controlled demolition would have probably not been covered by the insurance! Mr. Silverstein apparently admitted that a decision was made to demolish the tower, but backpedaled quickly when the insurance balked!
I'm not too comfortable with the thread title. Of course there really were Al Qaida terrorists, who hijacked passenger planes and crashed them into the towers and elsewhere. I suspect they were financed through numerous middle men by these banker pharisees that control most of the world's economy including the Federal Reserve.. Globalism, a war with Islam and a one world government is their goal.
This thread is a debate about whether the Federal Reserve cartel, the US government, the transfer of astronomical sums of money from computers in the WTC to unknown accounts or insurance fraud also played a role in the demolition of the towers. Or whether these rag tag terrorists-secretly financed provocateurs- were the sole source of all the destruction. All the building collapses!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2013 16:48:02 GMT
Looking purely at Tower 7, though, I ask again if it could have been deliberately demolished without someone later "spilling the beans". A whole crew of experts from different bodies were later charged with investigating the collapse. OK, if they were brought in on the understanding that the building collapsed of its own volition, they might not have been looking for any evidence of an explosion (or whatever is needed for a controlled demolition). They will have interviewed people who at the scene, surely? Even if the demolition people were somehow silenced, it is highly unlikely that a firefighter would agree to lie, and by that time there were people fighting the blaze.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 26, 2013 9:44:13 GMT
Looking purely at Tower 7, though, I ask again if it could have been deliberately demolished without someone later "spilling the beans". A whole crew of experts from different bodies were later charged with investigating the collapse. OK, if they were brought in on the understanding that the building collapsed of its own volition, they might not have been looking for any evidence of an explosion (or whatever is needed for a controlled demolition). They will have interviewed people who at the scene, surely? Even if the demolition people were somehow silenced, it is highly unlikely that a firefighter would agree to lie, and by that time there were people fighting the blaze. The explanations that are given for the neat collapses of WTC1, 2 and 7 remind me of the attempts to claim Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone JFK assassin!
Of course the "experts" give a "logical explanation" ( what a laugh! ;D ) also to explain how JFK's skull fragments bounced out backwards onto the trunk of car after being hit by Oswald's bullet shoot behind him. And of course JFK's body jolted backwards in the direction of Oswald.
Jackie Kennedy tries to retrieve the skull fragments. Very sad! You get hit by a bullet and your body gets thrown in the same direction as the bullet just like getting hit by a punch. Or was JFK like the WTC buildings the only exception to the normal laws of physics!
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Mar 26, 2013 20:04:39 GMT
As I shall be away tomorrow at my father's funeral and will not be back home until late on Thursday I do not have the time to respond to this thread although I promise to do so at some stage during this week.
However I do NOT believe that 9/11 was an 'inside job' anymore than, say, Somalia or 7/7 or the various other terrorist atrocities over the years have been.
There is no doubt that this extreme event - which I watched live on television - caused unimaginable harm to many people.
There is also no doubt that Bush took advantage of the atrocity to ram through even more repressive legislation and anti-democratic measures than even Clinton had dared.
But that is a long way from holding the Bush administration responsible for what happened on that tragic day.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Mar 26, 2013 21:30:24 GMT
What I find interesting is Europeans seem to have more faith in the American government than Americans do.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 26, 2013 22:56:11 GMT
The whole notion is just too silly and ridiculous to merit discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 27, 2013 0:10:59 GMT
It's not that we've got more faith in the government, Hunny; it's that we've got even LESS faith in conspiratorial nutjobs all with some kind of axe to grind and their own vested interests.
Not quite the same thing as naive trust in the government!
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 27, 2013 0:11:52 GMT
In my experience the overwhelming majority of people who've tried to persuade me of Bush and Co being behind 9/11 have been neo-Nazis. I'ts an obsession with many people on the far right in Britain!
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 27, 2013 1:02:41 GMT
What I find interesting is Europeans seem to have more faith in the American government than Americans do. Maybe it's just the Brits Hunny! I find that the Germans, Russians and other continental Europeans are much more likely to distrust governments and these international bankers that control most of the world's money system. I don't believe that Bush was ever involved in any 911 conspiracy and I don't believe that any elected officals were either. With the exceptions of LBJ, FDR and maybe Clinton we haven't had criminal US presidents!
The CIA has perhaps become a rougue element that serves the interests of the banker plutocrats, but I'm not saying that they were involved in 911 either. I just don't believe that the WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 collapsed solely because of the rag tag terrorist attack. There was a "second attack"!
Mundane, criminal insurance fraud or the known transfer of astronomical sums of money to unknown accounts from WTC computers before the destruction of these computers in the demolition of the WTC buildings may lead us to the other "guilty parties"!
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Mar 27, 2013 10:27:38 GMT
It's not that we've got more faith in the government, Hunny; it's that we've got even LESS faith in conspiratorial nutjobs all with some kind of axe to grind and their own vested interests. Not quite the same thing as naive trust in the government! 1/3 of Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job. And almost 40% of the members who voted in the poll do. They're nazis and nutjobs?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2013 15:19:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Mar 28, 2013 15:49:00 GMT
It's undeniable that the towers fell from controlled demolition.
That fact alone shows we have not been told the truth.
Plus.. the hole in the Pentagon was not made by a plane.
No one can deny these things except if they just want to, or they lack or purposely deny information.
It seems there's a bias in England (?)..something to do with nazis *shrug*. Well we dont have that situation here. What we have here - where it happened - is people see that they've been lied to. So they try and put the pieces together themselves as to what really went on and why. I think that's understandable. Myself, I think one should stick to what cant be refuted, rather than adopt a whole grand theory.
Facts I'm interested in.
Fact: the towers were professionally demolished. Planes arent why they came down. And the government denies it. THAT'S fishy...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2013 16:34:02 GMT
Of course it is deniable. No-one has answered my question (re Tower 7) of how this could have taken place without the knowledge of the firefighters, and the same applies to the other two towers. As for the Pentagon not being hit by a plane - rense.com/general32/phot.htmIt is great to keep an open mind. Scepticism is good - but to just dismiss something because the facts don't tie in with what everyone else thinks should have happened is ...well.... odd?
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Mar 28, 2013 22:25:18 GMT
Of course it is deniable. No-one has answered my question (re Tower 7) of how this could have taken place without the knowledge of the firefighters, and the same applies to the other two towers. I'm sorry, but i just dont understand the question. The firefighters did notice explosions in the basements and throughout the buildings. Lots of people did. There are numerous youtubes available showing this. Lots of documentation.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2013 8:11:05 GMT
I don't doubt that the fire set off explosions. Is there any evidence to say it was these that brought down the towers?
But if it is true, and there were controlled explosions, how were they detonated? If the decision to demolish was made after the planes crashed into the buildings; that would have meant people going into the basement, setting up the device and then retreating, all without the fire crew and cameramen knowing.
Or were CIA suicide bombers lurking below all the time, waiting for the inevitable moment when someone would hijack a plane and crash it into the twin towers, sending lighting debris hurtling towards Tower 7? Oh, Or had remotely detonable explosive devices been planted there for years, undiscovered, just in case someone decided to hijack a plane and fly it into the towers?
Or am I missing something?
Either way, I'm happy to consider any explanation. What I do find extraordinary is that people seem to think that because one theory doesn't fit perfectly, the alternative must apply.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Mar 29, 2013 12:51:27 GMT
I don't doubt that the fire set off explosions. Is there any evidence to say it was these that brought down the towers? But if it is true, and there were controlled explosions, how were they detonated? If the decision to demolish was made after the planes crashed into the buildings; that would have meant people going into the basement, setting up the device and then retreating, all without the fire crew and cameramen knowing. Or were CIA suicide bombers lurking below all the time, waiting for the inevitable moment when someone would hijack a plane and crash it into the twin towers, sending lighting debris hurtling towards Tower 7? Oh, Or had remotely detonable explosive devices been planted there for years, undiscovered, just in case someone decided to hijack a plane and fly it into the towers? Or am I missing something? Either way, I'm happy to consider any explanation. What I do find extraordinary is that people seem to think that because one theory doesn't fit perfectly, the alternative must apply. The explosives required to drop a building into its own footprint have to be professionally planned and placed throughout a structure, and then detonated in a precise timed sequence. These would have to have been placed weeks or months beforehand. There are a great many videos on youtube on the subject of 9-11 - some bogus, some not so well done, many that are theoretical, some just footage. I tried to find you some documentation on the "secondary explosions", but honest, I cant watch any more. People jumping from windows. Thousands dying as a building falls on them. The horror, the panic in the streets. It was horrendous then and it still is. I guess I've managed to set myself up as a defender of the story that we bombed our own buildings. I should have been more careful to state that all I feel is fact is there were explosions throughout the buildings which fell into their own footprint at freefall speed as if the columns were cut. And the hole in the Pentagon doesn't match up right, and the government confiscated and altered the only film of it happening. These things we know. These things are fishy. I don't think we got the straight story on what really happened. But that's all I'm saying. I have said this, but just because there are inconsistencies doesnt mean we should concoct a possible scenario and believe in it. People have tried to investigate this independently. There are films you could watch (like Loose Change). But I have no way of vetting the information they present. It'd be nice if a news organization, which could, would. But all we have is these doubts. My government leapt at the chance to start their "pre-emptive warring". And they may have been the ones who created that opportunity. Or they might have seen it coming and stepped aside. We dont know.
|
|