911 conspiracy to 911 common knowledge

[keithm]

*Important* Please read and understand everything I write before writing a response, too many times in the past I end up repeating myself several times in my thread. If you need to, please read the thread several times before posting comments or questions. Thanks. *Important*

An Important Distinction
Too often, as our society always does, we begin to divide ourselves against each other. Though we often share the same goals, we continually let ourselves be divided and conquered. And this is evident within the 911 movement. The truth movement is continually divided so that it can easily be conquered through ridicule and false science. Fellow members of the movement will argue endlessly about points that will likely never be proven either way, all while they let the goal of exposure slip away.

Always remember, there is only two sides here, you are one or the other.

You are either a person who does not believe the Official story, or you are a person that does believe the official story. That is the ONLY thing that matters. It doesn't matter if you believe there was no planes, or that I believe that there was planes, if we both agree that the official story is nonsensical. Through this division we are conquered, and we need to end that here, because we all have a common goal. When responding to this thread, I want you to begin by making this distinction prior to any comments. Either “I believe the official story (insert comment)” or, “I do not believe the official story (insert comment)”

Another... Important Distinction
Many people seem to think that it is on the truth movement, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Government was involved. This is FALSE. It is NOT on us to prove that, and it is definitely not possible for us to prove that entirely. Through this false mind set, we limit ourselves from ever making any true headway. Our only goal is to prove that it did not happen the way they said it did, and through that fact we can understand that they must have done it, because only the guilty must lie in explanation.

Short Anecdote:
A young boy walks out of a store, the owner quickly catches up and feels the young man may have stolen some items. He asks the boy “do you mind emptying your pockets?”. If the boy has not stolen anything, he would quickly empty his pockets confirming his innocence. But, if the boy has stolen something, he will do whatever he possibly can to avoid a search.

So why the anecdote? Because it illustrates exactly what we DO need to prove in this movement. We don't need to know what the boy stole, or why the boy stole, we don't even need to prove how he stole. We just need to listen to him do everything possible to avoid that search, because even if you don't know or cant prove all the variables, we still know based on his unwillingness to allow a search, and the fact that he is lying, prove his guilt.

In essence, I can't prove 100% why the government conducted 911, though I have some ideas. Or exactly how, everything was accomplished, though I have some ideas. But what can be proven is that their story does not add up, and because of that I know they are guilty, because if they were innocent their story would add up and they would have done everything in their power to divulge every piece of information. It's the unknown, and currently – unprovable, variables that are derailing this movement.

It's why we still have people on this forum, who believe in a completely illogical and outright blasphemous version of events that day. And with that view, they base their life, making decisions, building their perception, and influencing the way they act and interpret new information. It is dangerous. Because it's through this ignorant perception, that people allow illogical and threatening laws to be passed, wars to be launched, people to be murdered, and countries destroyed.

We must use undisputed facts, inconsistencies in the official version, and highlight the astronomical coincidences to make our point.

Why 911?
911 was a classic Problem, Reaction, Solution event. To help illustrate this point, even before the Problem (911) was created, the Solution, had already been formulated. Like the fact that "Game plan to remove al-Qaeda from the face of the Earth" is on Bush's desk September 9th, 2001.

This game plan includes invasion plans for Afghanistan. Which “coincidentally” would be the first illegal war launched based solely on the fact that the Problem (911) was created. The reaction to the problem, always allows the solution – no matter how ludicrous it may seem.



You show me one reporter, one commentator, one member of Congress who thought we should invade Afghanistan before September 11 and I'll buy you dinner in the best restaurant in New York City."

- Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser





To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11.

- Prime Minister Tony Blair




It's time for people to understand that there are no coincidences in the grand scheme of this world. Failing to understand that fact seriously limits your ability to evaluate the current state of your reality. You are limiting your perception. Especially since, these coincidences are absolutely astronomical.

A brief moment for another astronomical event. If you think it is a coincidence that the English secret service, with a company of 1000+ officers, were conducting a terror drill based on a scenario in which the exact same targets, would be attacked at the exact same stations, at the exact same time, you are absolutely oblivious to reality. That is an astronomical coincidence. Through this Problem, they created a Reaction from the people, and implemented their Solution of expanded police state, and war on terrorism. In the process, removing rights, destroying lives, and misleading the public.

Another Problem, Reaction, Solution (PRS), event was Swine Flu. I spoke out against it immediately, and stood fast while hysteria gripped this forum and our society. What you were witnessing was the Reaction, to a Problem that the Media had created so that the powers could implement a solution.

We wont know exactly how devastating the vaccines are until 100's of millions have taken them, that will be this winter. But, we can already see that the WHO has been granted sweeping powers, through the use of a media hyped “Pandemic Level”, and vaccine manufacturers have already been given Legal Immunity. So that when people start showing up maimed, sick, dying or dead. They have no legal recourse against toxic vaccines.

“This is a 911 topic, why talk about swine flu?”

Because it highlights the exact same scam that was used with 911. The solution, is always worse than the original problem. But since their solution has been allowed due to peoples reaction, to a completely fabricated problem, it is acceptable. Where as, prior to the problem, people would have never accepted the solution.

Amazing Coincidences...
Is it a coincidence that the “Pentagon Attack” happened to hit the only section designed to take such a hit?

Is it a coincidence that the hijacker, was so nice to go out of his way to attack that portion, rather than any other portion? Going so far as to execute almost an entire downward circle, to avoid all pentagon brass stationed directly on the opposite side of the building. Just a coincidence?

Is it a coincidence that 3 steel structured towers collapsed into themselves on 911, yet it has never happened before or since? How does a fire, a jet, a bomb, or anything which compromises less than 10% of a steel structure, some how cause a unilateral, complete systematic failure?

Is it a coincidence that some how, for the first time in history that day, we had almost two entire planes vaporize? Such as in Shanksville or at the Pentagon. It must be merely a coincidence, that these two planes practically disappeared. And in the Pentagon attack, it is simply a coincidence that the wings did no damage to the exterior of the building, nor did the engines, before they were 'sucked' into the building and vaporized. Riiiight.

Is it a coincidence or simply amazing luck, that Silverstein purchased the WTC complex 6 weeks prior to 911

It is especially convenient, since purchasing the WTC's were theoretically the worst business move in history. The towers were a black hole, that were only a burden. It was losing money hand over fist, and the cost of needed renovations were staggering. It would be cheaper to rebuild the towers, than to go through purchasing them.

It's just a coincidence, that he profited to the tune of 4.5 billion dollars on a six week investment which cost him 14 million out of pocket.

Thus, it must also be coincidence, that he happened to miss a very important meeting in the World Trade Center that day due to his wife “demanding” he see his dermatologist.





It's then, also a coincidence that Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon could not account for $2.3 trillion in spending, on September 10th. Luckily for him, the next day a problem would occur, which would enable trillions more in wasted spending.

I suppose it must also be a coincidence, that WTC 7, which was never hit with a plane and had sustained only superficial damage to one part of its facade, with small isolated fires burning, collapsed at near freefall speed mirroring the exact look, and movement of any controlled demolition.





Is it just a coincidence, that on the one time that America is actually attacked, that it is the one time Norad fails to scramble any jets towards the threat. Wait, make that, fails four times to scramble jets to neutralize a threat. All on one amazing day.

Is it just a coincidence, with so much debate about what happened at the Pentagon, that they have still never released anything more than 6 frames of footage? Especially when, not even those 6 frames even show anything conclusively. Perhaps an innocent Government, which had actually been attacked, would show every single tape, from every single angle of that plane hitting that building. So why do we only have 6 inconclusive frames?

Is it just a coincidence that scientists have found Military Grade Thermitic Materials in all dust samples studied from the debris?

Is it just a coincidence, that Marvin Bush was a principal in a company called Securacom which handled security of the WTC? At the exact time, someone was able to smuggle in and plant an estimated 10-100 tons of thermite? Obviously just a coincidence.

It's also just a coincidence, that for the first time in history, with the country under direct attack the preisdent sat still, in a location that had been publicly announced. He was never carried off by the secret service to somewhere “safe”. Perhaps he figured, he was safe.

It's also just a coincidence that pools of molten metal were found under the WTC rubble upto 6 weeks after the attacks. This is obviously something fire alone cannot accomplish, and it's additionally coincidental since it's been scientifically proven that thermite was used that day.

It's also interesting that they spent $65 million investigating Clintons Sex scandal, and only $3 million was designated to investigate the most devastating attack on American Soil ever.

Why did the government feel the need to lie about practically every aspect of that day, continually, when they should have wanted to know for themselves exactly what happened. Perhaps, it's all just a coincidence that they did not care.

Thus....?

The government has lied. Their story does not add up. And thus they must be guilty. There are elements of that day which will likely never be uncovered, as well as theories that will never be proven. But what is clearly evident is that we have been sold a joke, and because of that joke our entire life and our destiny has changed.

Our perception as a planet shifted that day, and layers of ignorance were imposed. As I mentioned, it is this intentionally imposed ignorance that has allowed our world to decay to it's current state. Sweeping police state measures added, absolutely unconstitutional laws passed, trillions of wasted spending, millions of innocent people dead, thousands of soldiers dead, thousands of soldiers taking their own life, thousands of first responders to the attacks are DEAD or dying.

We had our perception and future altered that day, those people had their perception and future ENDED. All because of a monstrous myth, that logic and scientific reasoning has quickly debunked. If you believe any one of those “coincidences” may, NOT have been a coincidence, that means you do NOT believe the official story. If this were an unexpected tragedy that were a genuine attack on the country, do you honestly believe there would exist so many astronomical coincidences? It's like winning the lottery 100 times consecutively it just doesn't happen – by chance.

It's time to quit letting people everywhere perpetuate the official story MYTH. Because the fact that people believe it shows that they are intentionally ignorant to the situation, and their reaction to events and perception of reality is crippled at best, and damaging to themselves, their family and their country at worst.

So lets end this divide in the movement, and begin to vigorously out those who want to be intentionally ignorant of the facts of a day which has forever changed the lives of everyone on this planet, and has ended the lives of millions permanently.

[supersmell]

Fellow members of the movement will argue endlessly about points that will likely never be proven either way, all while they let the goal of exposure slip away. There's actually a more serious problem here, most of the stuff being argued has already been proven false.


Short Anecdote:
A young boy walks out of a store, the owner quickly catches up and feels the young man may have stolen some items. He asks the boy “do you mind emptying your pockets?”. If the boy has not stolen anything, he would quickly empty his pockets confirming his innocence. But, if the boy has stolen something, he will do whatever he possibly can to avoid a search.

So why the anecdote? Because it illustrates exactly what we DO need to prove in this movement. We don't need to know what the boy stole, or why the boy stole, we don't even need to prove how he stole. We just need to listen to him do everything possible to avoid that search, because even if you don't know or cant prove all the variables, we still know based on his unwillingness to allow a search, and the fact that he is lying, prove his guilt.
People hate being falsely accused, they're just as likely to become stubborn and not cooperate at all when a madman is accusing them of something outrageous.


Is it a coincidence that 3 steel structured towers collapsed into themselves on 911, yet it has never happened before or since? How does a fire, a jet, a bomb, or anything which compromises less than 10% of a steel structure, some how cause a unilateral, complete systematic failure?
It's not a coincidence. It's what the laws of nature required.


Is it a coincidence that some how, for the first time in history that day, we had almost two entire planes vaporize? Such as in Shanksville or at the Pentagon. It must be merely a coincidence, that these two planes practically disappeared. And in the Pentagon attack, it is simply a coincidence that the wings did no damage to the exterior of the building, nor did the engines, before they were 'sucked' into the building and vaporized. Riiiight.
Didn't you just say you didn't believe in the NTP?


Is it just a coincidence that scientists have found Military Grade Thermitic Materials in all dust samples studied from the debris?

Is it just a coincidence, that Marvin Bush was a principal in a company called Securacom which handled security of the WTC? At the exact time, someone was able to smuggle in and plant an estimated 10-100 tons of thermite? Obviously just a coincidence.

It's also just a coincidence, that for the first time in history, with the country under direct attack the preisdent sat still, in a location that had been publicly announced. He was never carried off by the secret service to somewhere “safe”. Perhaps he figured, he was safe.

It's no coincidence. This is all completely untrue.


It's also just a coincidence that pools of molten metal were found under the WTC rubble upto 6 weeks after the attacks. This is obviously something fire alone cannot accomplish, and it's additionally coincidental since it's been scientifically proven that thermite was used that day.
This is also untrue.

[christophera]

Nice sentiment and basic logic. Left out is the post 9-11 psyops and the false opposition pretending to be against the official story, all the while opposing aspects that destroy it.

Our human fallibility and tendancy seems to take the blame for the division while elements that have infiltrated government work with counter parts in the corporate structure that do more than just divide are ignored.

Stating "Things that will never be proven either way" assumes that the divided factions indicated, for truth, is capable of even examining evidence rationally and making inferences and deductions that are useful. It is not. The statement is a generalization, a minimization, a cognitive distortion.

There is an assumption that the standard of lawful government controls government and just showing that their basic behavior is inadequate justifies the governmental investigation of itself. It does not. We have to show other Americans, who are being lied to, decieved and mislead by a psyops. We have to convince them well enough that they are ready to act to make government lawful.

It is not a boy on the street we have confronted, asking to empty his pockets. It is a gang of criminals and they've been selling dope (social fear, the stuff of apathy) to our neighbors controlling them .

[bsmurph83]

i second you, keithm and admire your determination in this.

i don't hang round the 9/11 forum so much, but i've been dropping by lately to scan some threads. it never ceases to amaze me some of the gems that crop up.

it also never ceases to amaze me some of the nonsense and dogmatism that crops up as well, like when people quote a post section by section and instead of rebutting with evidence, just say "this isn't true", "this is a lie", and so forth, as if that settles it. it's that kind of mentality that shows there will not be a consensus on 9/11 for a long time, if ever.

the coincidence theorists hate it when peoples' rational mind is invoked by listing even just a few of the monumental 'coincidences' that occurred on 9-11. the coincidences alone prove that the Gov explanation is complete BS.

they destroyed the biggest crime scene in US history and sent it off to China without investigating and studying it properly, for christ's sake. don't worry, that's a coincidence too. building 7 collapsed perfectly in an ARCHETYPAL flawless demolition, apparently out of fright, having watched his two big brothers topple over. it had virtually no damage, certainly no major structural damage, and no reason whatsoever to fall perfectly at near free-fall speed into its own footprint. third building in history to collapse in that fashion, allegedly due to fire damage, and the only other 2 buildings to collapse in this miraculous fashion did so ON THE SAME DAY. 3 world firsts on one day. how's that for coincidence? nothing to see here, folks.

keithm, you listed a mere fraction of the coincidences that compose the 'politically correct' official fairytale for 9/11. you could have gone on for pages. the indisputable IMPLICATION that terrifies so many people when they realise the ridiculous improbability of those coincidences all ACTUALLY being coincidences is that the government could somehow be complicit in such an atrocity against its own people. noone wants to wake up to find out that the babysitter is a psychotic axe murderer.

people would have to stop feeding at the teet of an organised criminal cartel and actually take responsibility for themselves and the state of 'society'. most aren't ready for it, but you're right, the least people who DO realise the 9/11 story is bullshit can do is set aside differences and acknowledge such and proceed from there without the petty in-fighting, bickering and ego games.

a unified front would be stronger, even if it's just in showing the 'uninitiated' that NOTHING the governments tell us can be taken at face value. in other words, if we destroy the ILLUSION OF CREDIBILITY the governments have weaved for themselves, people will be much more willing to question the bilge they are pumped with and actually do something about it. then 9/11 can be universally seen for what it is - State sponsored terrorism in the proud tradition of the American Corporation that masquerades as a Constitutional Government.

Psycopaths are part and parcel of 'the system' and they administrate it from the upper echelons and key positions. This is nothing new. People act like it is but it's actually the M.O. for the corporate entity known as the United States of America.

background in the tradition of false flag terrorism can help people break through their fear. you show them government terrorism from decades past and it eases the fear and anxiety because there is no immediate threat from something that has already happened. then they adapt to the idea that the powers that be, are, HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, not only capable but WILLING to slaughter not only foreigners but their OWN PEOPLE simply to further their corporate agenda. then people will be more willing to accept such a possibility in relation to our modern times and see the gov's for what they are.

[christophera]

it also never ceases to amaze me some of the nonsense and dogmatism that crops up as well, like when people quote a post section by section and instead of rebutting with evidence, just say "this isn't true", "this is a lie", and so forth, as if that settles it. it's that kind of mentality that shows there will not be a consensus on 9/11 for a long time, if ever.

That is especially true when forum admin does not evaluate the evidence and reason with fidelity to the truth. Note this forum title.

[supersmell]

it also never ceases to amaze me some of the nonsense and dogmatism that crops up as well, like when people quote a post section by section and instead of rebutting with evidence, just say "this isn't true", "this is a lie", and so forth, as if that settles it. it's that kind of mentality that shows there will not be a consensus on 9/11 for a long time, if ever.
There is evidence in all the threads that deal with the topics specifically. Theories that are completely untrue come up in pretty much every thread, giving even a partial debunking every time would be a complete waste of time. Most of the people posting here are lost in a delusion anyway, so the truth isn't actually of any interest to them.

they destroyed the biggest crime scene in US history and sent it off to China without investigating and studying it properly, for christ's sake. don't worry, that's a coincidence too. building 7 collapsed perfectly in an ARCHETYPAL flawless demolition, apparently out of fright, having watched his two big brothers topple over. it had virtually no damage, certainly no major structural damage, and no reason whatsoever to fall perfectly at near free-fall speed into its own footprint. third building in history to collapse in that fashion, allegedly due to fire damage, and the only other 2 buildings to collapse in this miraculous fashion did so ON THE SAME DAY. 3 world firsts on one day. how's that for coincidence? nothing to see here, folks.
Building seven took a lot of damage from the collapse of the other towers. Before it collapsed it was already determined that it could not be safely/economically repaired and had to be torn down. Saying that it took no damage means that you have never actually made any effort to find out what actually happened.


keithm, you listed a mere fraction of the coincidences that compose the 'politically correct' official fairytale for 9/11. you could have gone on for pages. the indisputable IMPLICATION that terrifies so many people when they realise the ridiculous improbability of those coincidences all ACTUALLY being coincidences is that the government could somehow be complicit in such an atrocity against its own people. noone wants to wake up to find out that the babysitter is a psychotic axe murderer.
Since the majority of the coincidences are lies, half truths, and exaggerations the general public has been taking the correct action, ridiculing truthers.

[shoust]

Building seven took a lot of damage from the collapse of the other towers. Before it collapsed it was already determined that it could not be safely/economically repaired and had to be torn down. Saying that it took no damage means that you have never actually made any effort to find out what actually happened.


A lot of damage, are you kidding me? The others below it took HEAVY damage way more than WTC7 got hit by, and they didn't come down as unnaturally if at all like 7 did.

Also,see http://wtc7corner.blogspot.com/ picture.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Do I have to once again call everyone's attention to the plethora of firefighter testimony that says that the damage to WTC7 was not superficial, that the fires were not minor and confined to only a few floors, and that the collapse of the building had been expected for hours before it actually happened?

Sadly, yes.

Here's a bunch:


Firefighter Edward Kennedy:

"But this is as the day was going on and, of course, there were so many transmissions going over. I remember him screaming about 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse...."


Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler:

"Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."


Firefighter George Holzman:

"We stayed there for quite sometime when I don't even know who, I think it was someone, Lieutenant Lowney spoke to, asked us to leave the area, they were concerned about 7 World Trade Center collapsing."


Firefighter Kevin Howe:

"At that time there was a lot of fire going on. I think it was the Customs House was roaring. The 7 World Trade Center was roaring."


Captain Robert Sohmer:

"As the day went on they started worrying about 7 World Trade Center collapsing and they ordered an evacuation from that area..."


Assistant Chief Harold Meyers:

"Chief Nigro directed me to continue monitoring conditions at the site. Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center. We were very concerned with the collapse potential there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site safety in that no additional people became injured."


Firefighter Fred Marsilla:

At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. But you do what you got to do as usual. We operated till they finally started pulling people back.


Firefighter Adrienne Walsh:

Then we were instructed to search through two or three buildings to make sure they were stable, and then they pulled everybody out because of the pink building. Was it 7 World Trade, that was going?
Q. Right.
A. Then they pulled everybody out.


Firefighter Kevin Quinn:

Then approximately I guess maybe two hours before number 7 came down, we went into Ground Zero and helped dig around and was there when they located Chief Feehan and one of the Chiefs pulled us all out because they said 7 was going to come down.


Captain Anthony Varriale:

At that time, other firefighters started showing up, Deputy Battalion Chief Paul Ferran of the 41 Battalion, and James Savastano of the First Division assigned to the Second Battalion showed up and we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center.


Firefighter Vandon Williams:

It could have been an hour, hour and a half we were doing that before we were ordered to move away from that part of Tower No. 1 because there was an imminent danger of collapse of World Trade Center No. 5 and 7.


Firefighter Eugene Kelty, Jr.:

And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. There was concern. I had gone up to take a look at it, because I knew that the telephone company building, which is 140 West Street, was next to 7 World Trade Center, and there was a concern that if 7 World Trade came down, what would happen to this building?


Firefighter Richard Banaciski:

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about.


Chief Frank Cruthers:

Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area ?
Q. A collapse zone?
A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it.


A bunch more firefighter and eyewitness testimony (fully sourced) here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage) and here. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc)


The decision to suspend firefighting efforts and set up a collapse zone around the building was made by former Chief of Department FDNY Daniel Nigro. Here is his account: (http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro)

Release date: September 23, 2007

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

Did you get that last sentence, truthers?

Here it is again:

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

[bsmurph83]

There is evidence in all the threads that deal with the topics specifically. Theories that are completely untrue come up in pretty much every thread, giving even a partial debunking every time would be a complete waste of time. Most of the people posting here are lost in a delusion anyway, so the truth isn't actually of any interest to them.

Building seven took a lot of damage from the collapse of the other towers. Before it collapsed it was already determined that it could not be safely/economically repaired and had to be torn down. Saying that it took no damage means that you have never actually made any effort to find out what actually happened.


Since the majority of the coincidences are lies, half truths, and exaggerations the general public has been taking the correct action, ridiculing truthers.

supersmell, your name is apropos, for there is a certain ungodly stench that emanates from your words. your sources for the myth that building seven took 'a lot of damage' are.... what exactly? your analysis of keithm's post doesn't even constitute a 'partial debunking', it is tantamount to saying, "No, no, no, no, no, no, no. So there." *thumb nose*

i said building 7 took no MAJOR STRUCTURAL DAMAGE, i didn't say it took no damage whatsoever. once again we the the average B-grade debunker/pseudosceptic MISREPRESENTING content. when will you all learn to pay closer attention to what is actually being conveyed? building seven took some minor damage from debris, some fire damage of neglible effect and NO MAJOR STRUCTURAL DAMAGE. the only thing compromising the integrity of Building 7's structure was the explosive charges that had obviously been rigged days to weeks in advance in order to demolish the building like you said. even the crook who owned it, Silverstein, (stupidly) admitted it was a demo. NOW;

let's stop and think about that for a second.

are the explosives for a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION (and a flawless one at that) rigged up in a building that has floors on fire and has suffered minor structural damage as a result of buildings having collapsed and been hit with jet planes?

it takes WEEKS of planning or setup to organise a properly executed demolition, as building 7's obviously was. you don't go into a building that on fire and supposedly 'badly damaged' and start running around rigging explosives up!

are you kidding me?

it just isn't done. it's insanity. suicide. grossly negligent and incompetent. completely unheard of. this is the stuff of unicorns and goblins.

you would have us believe that ON THE VERY DAY that tthe building suffers this damage (which is widely known to NOT be major structural damage at all) and catches fire in places, they sent men into this building with explosives for a controlled demolition and had them rig it for a demolition?

um... what?

the only other alternative is to realise that the building was NOT rigged for demolition ON THE DAY but was obviously done a great deal in advance. obviously those who worked in the building were not informed of the fact because rigging a building for demolition and leaving it open for business and/or public access and use isn't the done thing (duh).

obviously we then have to face the awkward fact that there was FOREKNOWLEDGE of what would be happening on 9-11, and building 7 was always intended to be brought down with the towers. there are so many reports of foreknowledge; so many people of credibility who have admitted they received forewarning that something would happen that day that it does not even bear mentioning here. it is a done deal.

don't worry, just a coincidence. oh, don't worry about John O'Neill who died on his first day on the job in the WTC. one of the few who could have exposed the Bush government's involvement in various criminal areas relating to 'terrorism' in a big way. johnny boy was one guy who DIDN'T get the tipoff. don't worry, that's a coincidence too.

furthermore, who are you to sit there declaring what the 'correct action' for the public to take is? i dare say that the public would benefit far more from growing up beyond the juvenile level of debunkers and pseudo-sceptics and actually start making some of the pertinent connections.

ridicule is for the school yard. not for thinking, sentient adults. typical pseudo-sceptic thinking. mock the 'credulous' from high up in your ivory tower of unadulterated 'rational' thought (where the air is obviously so thin you can't see when you are being played like a fiddle).

even ignoring the buildings' collapse, there is SO MUCH circumstantial evidence in other areas that this was a calculated inside job it is ridiculous. the debunkers would have us pass it all off as coincidence and simply give our minds back to the 'authorities' so they can continue moulding them how they see fit.

since when are the 'authorities' actually 'authoritative'?

5 minutes studying false flag terrorism puts that myth to bed.

5 minutes looking at the fact that the United States of America refers to TWO SEPERATE ENTITIES;

A parasitic COMPANY originally from England and originally operating under another name, now going by the very same name (United States of America) that masquerades as a constitutional government (while dismantling the constitution), and

the Constitutional entity that has been buried under the lies concocted by this aforementioned corporate entity. did the 'authorities' tell you that one?

the most dangerous enemy the American public has is their corporate masters who pull the strings of 'government'. hey, don't worry about the fact that half of Obama's administration and/or policy makers are holdovers from Dubya's! change you can laugh at.

the left-right political polemic is completely controlled by banking and corporate forces. they call the tune the government dances to. "it's a fantasy" in the words of non-corporately owned scholar Webster Tarpley.

The only people who don't recognise it are those trapped in the emotional comfort of the politically correct belief system peddled by ignorant believers and debunkers and frontmen for the establishent who have sold their souls.

the political faces the public sees might change but the results don't because the REAL decision/policy makers are not the figureheads we are conditioned to recognise as 'leaders'.

as always, the topic of 9/11 spills over into so many different areas that the pseudo-sceptic reductionist mindset is simply left in the dust. there's too much to take in. it's isn't even really about 9/11.

9/11 is just one strand in a sickening web of deceipt the masses are ensnared in. 'ridiculing truthers' only serves to perpetuate the deception.

you must be proud.

besides being a pseudo-sceptic lie-mongering troll, what does your presence here achieve?

go ahead then, 'ridicule' me, if you think that this is what makes someone 'intelligent' or 'right' or 'patriotic' or 'politically savvy'.

grow up. :)

[deem]

I believe strongly in 'fact' it was an inside job. I dont believe the 'official theory' at all.Iv stated my reasons in many of these threads. There are two shills operating at the moment on this thread. ( You know who you are, and we know who you are ).I dont know what they're doing here, I dont go round trolling ' sheep monthly' looking for converts. I refuse to engage in debates with close mined snoops. So if you ask me something and i dont respond dont take it to heart, it means you've been sussed G.Agent. Here's a nice news report from the BBC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXAK0W5iPgQ

[bsmurph83]

I believe strongly in 'fact' it was an inside job. I dont believe the 'official theory' at all. Iv stated my reasons in many of these threads. there are two shill operating at the moment on this thread ( you know who you are, and we know who you are). I dont know what they're doing here, i dont go round trolling ' Sheep monthly' looking for converts. I refuse to engage in debates with closed minded snoops, so if you ask me something and i dont respond, dont take it to heart, it just means you've been sussed G.Agent.

it's easy to spot the agents, huh, deem. i love this line of yours, it made me laugh out loud:

"I dont know what they're doing here, i dont go round trolling ' Sheep monthly' looking for converts."

classic.

i've had my vent. i care not for the trite banalities inhabiting the minds of the agents in this thread (or others, for that matter). typically i don't respond to agents and/or morons. when you see a mind that is shut down and does not wish to become functional, the best thing to do is save one's energy. typically this is my approach, but...

once in a while i blow off a little steam.

i don't hope - vainly - to change the mind that is not functional. the minds that interest me are those that are but have not yet begun to sus what is going on on this planet. the people on the 9/11 threads don't need my input, they don't need to be told they're being screwed. if they didn't know that they wouldn't be here. the agents on here DO need my input (and everyone else's) but they don't want it and i don't plan to make a habit of forcing it on anyone.

there's no use arguing. there will be gullible fools and agents to spoon feed them until we die. as a general rule i do not concern myself such. if you have to argue, the debate is already lost, because that is a mind that has made itself and won't be changed by any amount of evidence.

i had a friend tell me once that he'd never believe it NO MATTER HOW MUCH EVIDENCE was presented (except for signed confessions - um... what?)

welcome to the agent fodder; those minds who just cannot let go. perhaps i'll put that old friend in touch with the agents frequenting this and other threads. they'll tell him what he wants to hear.

it's ok, everyone! no, really!!! go back to sleep!

peace, i'm getting back to my usual scene for now. done with this thread. the agents have polluted it with their stench and it's gotten hard to breathe.

Note: as general policy i do not engage agents, fools or belligerent delinquents. in those cases, silence will be my default. nothin' personal.

EDIT:

FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, SILVERSTEIN DID NOT USE THE TERM 'DEMO', he 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.

Silerstein's faux pas is obvious; he admitted they were not pulling the firefighters (them), but the building (it).

For those who would say " 'Pull' isn't a term used by the explosives industry to refer to bringing down a building with explosives", Silverstein and the fire department aren't IN the demo business. they aren't the ones who did it. the fire department obviously did decide to 'pull' their men out, as they evacuated, but they had nothing to do with the building itself being 'pulled' in controlled demo. they didn't even know it had been rigged. Silverstein did though, you can see it in him. sly fucker. he made billions from the collapse of those buildings - he knew what was coming. more 'coincidence'. insider trading immediately prior to 9/11 indicates blatant foreknowledge as well...

there is simply no way physics can account for the flawless, symmetrical near-freefall collapse of building seven. if it it WAS damaged enough that it could have collapsed on its own (it wasn't), it could simply not have collapsed in the way it did. it would have crumbled unevenly, partially and imperfectly, not PERFECTLY into its own footprint in a few seconds - an ARCHETYPAL demo. no buildings in history have been recorded as doing what those 3 did that same day. many buildings have suffered FAR WORSE fire damage spread over many hours and remained standing.

the firefighters' testimony is too contradictory and too many people have been lent on and intimidated to bother making claims that one bunch of testimony trumps another. testimony can be altered by threats and intimidation, and this can be seen to have happened, as people have changed their stories after the fact. much early/initial eyewitness testimony from the towers states that explosives were going off in the basement - people suffered serious injury from these explosions. obviously for buildings to collapse in this way, the foundational structure must be rigged for explosives, otherwise they could not collapse perfectly at near-freefall speed into own footprints. this especially goes for buidling 7.

people just need to go watch the footage. it clearly shows a building being demolished from the inside out, providing virtually no resistance as it falls UNIFORMLY; not a building falling from spotty damage from debris. watch the footage and then watch footage of controlled demo's.

then study the political and Intel connections and realise this is infinitely bigger than merely the way the buildings fell.

prior knowledge was held by many. many officials or cronies of officials were warned to stay home that day.

this is too vast to go further with. spoon feeding people achieves nothing. either see the myriad connections or don't. not my call to make for people.

end of. no harm done. peace everyone, i'm off to the thread/s i can actually learn from.

[tabea_blumenschein]

i said building 7 took no MAJOR STRUCTURAL DAMAGE, i didn't say it took no damage whatsoever. once again we the the average B-grade debunker/pseudosceptic MISREPRESENTING content. when will you all learn to pay closer attention to what is actually being conveyed? building seven took some minor damage from debris, some fire damage of neglible effect and NO MAJOR STRUCTURAL DAMAGE. the only thing compromising the integrity of Building 7's structure was the explosive charges that had obviously been rigged days to weeks in advance in order to demolish the building like you said. even the crook who owned it, Silverstein, (stupidly) admitted it was a demo. NOW;

(emphasis mine)


Did you even bother reading the firefighter accounts in my post? Or the dozens of others I so kindly provided links for?

Their eyewitness testimony flatly contradicts your claims. Is that not a problem for you?

~

Now regarding your "Silverstein admitted it was a demo" claim. Garbage. Silverstein made no such statement.

Here are Mr. Silverstein's exact words:

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.


The call is from a fire department commander. It should go without saying that the FDNY does not carry out explosive demolitions of buildings.

The fire department commander informs the building owner (Mr. Silverstein) that the survival of his property is in doubt, because the department isn't sure they will be able to contain the fire.

Mr. Silverstein responds by saying, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." 'Pull' isn't a term used by the explosives industry to refer to bringing down a building with explosives. That's typical truther b.s. that's been making the rounds for years. It's obvious from the context that "pull" means to abandon the building, the reason being because "we've had such terrible loss of life".

If we interpret that sentence your way, it would say "we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is to blow up the building." Does that make a goddamn bit of sense?

Mr. Silverstein proceeds, "And they made the decision to pull ...". "They" being the fire department. Specifically, Daniel Nigro, whose statement I quoted in my previous post. Again, since the FDNY isn't involved in explosive demolitions, "pull" obviously means pull the guys back and abandon the building.

If you still think Silverstein is talking about blowing up the building after that explanation, please explain why.

[deem]

I totaly agree with you bsmurph83, especialy about the stench. We try to discuss a topic, and you cant be heard over the white noise coming from the shills. One of them e.mailed me cupla weeks ago and admitted that he works for the government. He said he guarantees that "7/7 was nothing to do with any govt plot", he said he "isnt acting on behalf of the state", telling me " i should be careful who i call a shill." They piss down our backs and try to tell us it's fucking raining.Anyway this threads fucked for now so im off too.:D

[tabea_blumenschein]

A back-of-the-envelope physics calculation regarding the "freefall speed" claims.

It can be demonstrated, using a little calculus, that the total gravitational potential energy of one of the twin towers was almost certainly between MGH/2 and MGH/3, where M is the mass, g is acceleration due to gravity, and H is the height of the building. These results are derived assuming the mass of each succeeding floor decreases at a constant rate as you go up the building.

Each tower was 417 meters tall, and I'll take the mass to be 300,000 metric tons (far less than the 500,000 ton figure I usually see tossed around). We estimate the total GPE to be:

U = 4.0866 *10^11 Joules ("lower-bound" estimate)

U = 6.1299 * 10^11 Joules ("upper-bound" estimate)

An object in freefall from the roof of one of those buildings would take about 9.23 seconds to reach the ground.

If we assume a collapse time of 13 seconds, we can estimate (although I won't show it) that about 1/2 of the total GPE was dissipated overcoming resistance from the structure to the collapse.

In physics, the rate at which energy is transformed from one form to another is the watt, which is given in joules per second. If we do the math, we find that the average rate of energy dissipation for a 13 second collapse is between 15.7 gigawatts (most conservative estimate) to 23.6 gigawatts.

A modern nuclear power plant produces power on the order of 1 gigawatt.

Therefore, we see that the average rate of energy dissipated by the structure during the tower collapses was equivalent to the combined output of between 16 and 24 nuclear power plants. That's a lot of resistance.

Alternately, we can look at that in terms of the energy density of TNT, which is 4,184,000 joules per kilogram. I just did the math, and found that the rate at which energy is dissipated during a 13 second tower collapse compares to the detonation of an average of between 8,200 pounds and 12,400 pounds of high explosive per second. Putting bombs in those buildings would have been as pointless and as unnecessary as throwing a snowball into an avalanche.

The truth movement believes that if a structure resists a collapse, the collapse time should increase greatly. I know that this is going to fall on deaf ears, but the laws of physics do not support that idea. Regardless of what initiated it, the global collapse of a very large building is expected to happen quickly. And for a somewhat smaller building like WTC7, even a couple of seconds difference from freefall from the roof is a long time.

I know, I know. On deaf ears.

~

For the record, I am not the person who e-mailed deem.

[stannrodd]

These results are derived assuming the mass of each succeeding floor decreases at a constant rate as you go up the building.

This is a false assumption for the model. There is no "smooth" constant rate, ... but a defined rate which is not simply and smoothly distributed mathematically ... and the reason for that is .. that the towers were constructed as three separate structures with machinery floors as the dividing engineering platforms for successive "structures". Each successive "box of floors" was designed to accommodate the stresses of successive "boxes" placed on top of them as a dead load and to accommodate the dead load and the live loadings during tenancy.

I'm talking about three structures. Ground to first third. First third to second and second to top. This is a three stage thing over the height of the tower rather than a smooth curve.

Each box has different requirements in terms of live loads, but they all have to have the obvious dead load maximum defined = structure which is not support structure.

Stann

[novymir]

The initial anecdote is misleading.
Using a kid in a store as an example is not analogous to the actual situation.

We in the so-called "U.S.A." are supposed to be "presumed innocent until proven guilty", though that is in the process of being turned on it's head.
Of course "proof" is subjective too. Obviously, the outcome of a given controversy being usually determined by consensus, or, might makes right, which has no real relation to Truth.

I do not have to prove my innocence to anybody. I don't give a shit what they might think or "feel", they have no right to invade my space or control my movement based on "thinking" or "feeling". I am not obligated to empty my pockets or stand around and be interrogated.
Either the guy ACTUALLY saw and KNOWS something was stolen, or he is BLUFFING, a mind-game hoping to intimidate or project a false reality onto the suspect.
They are going to have to take another angle on it.

Like an employer told me 30+ years ago, that has taken on a relevance today way beyond what he was expressing then ; "...don't think,,, Know".

Not to mention, the real Truth about 9-11 is only known by a handful of people, and few if any here. Those stuck in 3D thinking will never grasp it. And they will be played.

[rawvegan]

+1

[supersmell]

your analysis of keithm's post doesn't even constitute a 'partial debunking', it is tantamount to saying, "No, no, no, no, no, no, no. So there." *thumb nose*

Yeah, I did say that a partial debunking isn't worth the time.

go ahead then, 'ridicule' me, if you think that this is what makes someone 'intelligent' or 'right' or 'patriotic' or 'politically savvy'.

grow up. :)
You do deserve to be ridiculed if you think I thought that the building were wired for explosives at all, let alone while the fires were raging.

[tabea_blumenschein]

This is a false assumption for the model. There is no "smooth" constant rate, ... but a defined rate which is not simply and smoothly distributed mathematically ... and the reason for that is .. that the towers were constructed as three separate structures with machinery floors as the dividing engineering platforms for successive "structures". Each successive "box of floors" was designed to accommodate the stresses of successive "boxes" placed on top of them as a dead load and to accommodate the dead load and the live loadings during tenancy.

I'm talking about three structures. Ground to first third. First third to second and second to top. This is a three stage thing over the height of the tower rather than a smooth curve.

Each box has different requirements in terms of live loads, but they all have to have the obvious dead load maximum defined = structure which is not support structure.

Stann


Thanks for the response, Stann; your points are well made. However, I was just trying to definitely "bracket" the actual GPE of the building between two possible estimates, and that doesn't require that you be superprecise with your mass equation.

I wish I'd have remembered it last night while I was writing that post, but Gregory Urich did a comprehensive analysis of the mass and potential energy of the towers and published it in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. (http://www.journalof911studies.com) The version there is in .pdf format; if you'd like to read the paper in .htm format instead, it can be found on the 911research.net website here. (http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/urich/MassAndPeWtc1.htm)

Mr. Urich's results are as follows:

The in-service mass of Tower 1 (North Tower) of the World Trade is found to be 288,100 metric tons (317,500 short tons). The potential energy above the 1st floor is found to be 480,600 MJ.

The potential energy given falls right within my lower and upper-bound estimates (409,000 MJ and 613,000 MJ). Like I said, if I'd have remembered Mr. Urich's estimate, I would have used that. But for a simple "back of the envelope" calculation, bracketing the actual GPE to within the range I did was good enough.

If you're interested, here are the equations I came up with. First, the general "linear variation" mass equation:

m(x) = -(2M/H(1+k)) * (((1-k)/H)*x - 1)

Here's the equation I needed to integrate to estimate total GPE:

dU/dx = -(2M/H(1+k)) * (((1-k)/H)*x - 1)*g*x

And here is that result, after much finagling:

U = (MgH/3) * (1 + 2k)/(1+k)

The boundary conditions are k=0 (lower bound) and k=1 (upper bound).

There's a reason you neglect air resistance, assume planets and stars have uniform densities, and assume simple linear mass variations in large buildings whenever you can get away with it. Even with these simplifications, the models can be a pain in the ass! :p

[stannrodd]

Hi tabea,
It was when I was studying the structural adequacy of the towers that this three stage concept came into view. I'm not an architect just an armchair inquisitor.

I heartily agree with you .. that super precise isn't necessary in the model but inclusion of unique basic factors which could affect the model outcome .. versus the actual outcome for comparison purposes is useful for accuracy in terms of peer review criticism.

There is one aspect I always refer to .. and that is that the towers DID collapse with a remarkable similarity to each other .. this in itself leads to speculation that there were same or similar forces which worked to cause that.

I'm not going to speculate anything other than that. There is enough of speculative theories already without mine.

Thanks for the link I will have a look see.

Stann

[cruise4]

Yes, they need arresting. That's all that's left, re. 9/11, to bother with. Everything else is just bullshit at this stage.

[3stepsahead]

both wtc exploded. nr7 imploded/demoed.

the collapse is artificial as far as buildings collapses go.
theres a fine line between crumbling and collapsing vs exploding into dust.


there is also videos of the first fire truck trying explicit to warn about imminenet danger put next to the communiqe going through the towers telling people that theyre safe and to not leave the building, points to both admin and emergency personell aware of what was actually GOING to happening.

[voynich]

Has anyone looked at the website by popular mechanics who have debunked many of the 9/11 myths, not being technically minded I am not sure what to make of it and would appreciate comments from others either for or against.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

[cruise4]

voynich, read the 9/11 threads. It's been done to death.

[frase]

Look guys..Its pointless going back and forth saying what about this etc?
We are all rational people who have looked at the EVIDENCE objectively and the facts.
There is no other conclusion other than that it was an inside job and the "official" story is BULLSHIT.
It has taken me around 18 months to say this definitively as Im sure many of you others have had a similar kind of battle with your own psyche about the sheer magnitude of it all, and still questioning yourself...
Facts are facts though.
Only thing you can do now is point as many people as you know in the right direction to research themselves in a calm, rational, non confrontational way....Scatter seeds and they will grow....
Only takes one tree to make a thousand matches...only takes one match to buirn a thousand trees....
Thats how quick word can get around so remember that....!

[frase]

it's easy to spot the agents, huh, deem. i love this line of yours, it made me laugh out loud:

"I dont know what they're doing here, i dont go round trolling ' Sheep monthly' looking for converts."

classic.

i've had my vent. i care not for the trite banalities inhabiting the minds of the agents in this thread (or others, for that matter). typically i don't respond to agents and/or morons. when you see a mind that is shut down and does not wish to become functional, the best thing to do is save one's energy. typically this is my approach, but...

once in a while i blow off a little steam.



i don't hope - vainly - to change the mind that is not functional. the minds that interest me are those that are but have not yet begun to sus what is going on on this planet. the people on the 9/11 threads don't need my input, they don't need to be told they're being screwed. if they didn't know that they wouldn't be here. the agents on here DO need my input (and everyone else's) but they don't want it and i don't plan to make a habit of forcing it on anyone.

there's no use arguing. there will be gullible fools and agents to spoon feed them until we die. as a general rule i do not concern myself such. if you have to argue, the debate is already lost, because that is a mind that has made itself and won't be changed by any amount of evidence.

i had a friend tell me once that he'd never believe it NO MATTER HOW MUCH EVIDENCE was presented (except for signed confessions - um... what?)

welcome to the agent fodder; those minds who just cannot let go. perhaps i'll put that old friend in touch with the agents frequenting this and other threads. they'll tell him what he wants to hear.

it's ok, everyone! no, really!!! go back to sleep!

peace, i'm getting back to my usual scene for now. done with this thread. the agents have polluted it with their stench and it's gotten hard to breathe.

Note: as general policy i do not engage agents, fools or belligerent delinquents. in those cases, silence will be my default. nothin' personal.

EDIT:

FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, SILVERSTEIN DID NOT USE THE TERM 'DEMO', he 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.

Silerstein's faux pas is obvious; he admitted they were not pulling the firefighters (them), but the building (it).

For those who would say " 'Pull' isn't a term used by the explosives industry to refer to bringing down a building with explosives", Silverstein and the fire department aren't IN the demo business. they aren't the ones who did it. the fire department obviously did decide to 'pull' their men out, as they evacuated, but they had nothing to do with the building itself being 'pulled' in controlled demo. they didn't even know it had been rigged. Silverstein did though, you can see it in him. sly fucker. he made billions from the collapse of those buildings - he knew what was coming. more 'coincidence'. insider trading immediately prior to 9/11 indicates blatant foreknowledge as well...

there is simply no way physics can account for the flawless, symmetrical near-freefall collapse of building seven. if it it WAS damaged enough that it could have collapsed on its own (it wasn't), it could simply not have collapsed in the way it did. it would have crumbled unevenly, partially and imperfectly, not PERFECTLY into its own footprint in a few seconds - an ARCHETYPAL demo. no buildings in history have been recorded as doing what those 3 did that same day. many buildings have suffered FAR WORSE fire damage spread over many hours and remained standing.

the firefighters' testimony is too contradictory and too many people have been lent on and intimidated to bother making claims that one bunch of testimony trumps another. testimony can be altered by threats and intimidation, and this can be seen to have happened, as people have changed their stories after the fact. much early/initial eyewitness testimony from the towers states that explosives were going off in the basement - people suffered serious injury from these explosions. obviously for buildings to collapse in this way, the foundational structure must be rigged for explosives, otherwise they could not collapse perfectly at near-freefall speed into own footprints. this especially goes for buidling 7.

people just need to go watch the footage. it clearly shows a building being demolished from the inside out, providing virtually no resistance as it falls UNIFORMLY; not a building falling from spotty damage from debris. watch the footage and then watch footage of controlled demo's.

then study the political and Intel connections and realise this is infinitely bigger than merely the way the buildings fell.

prior knowledge was held by many. many officials or cronies of officials were warned to stay home that day.

this is too vast to go further with. spoon feeding people achieves nothing. either see the myriad connections or don't. not my call to make for people.

end of. no harm done. peace everyone, i'm off to the thread/s i can actually learn from.


GREAT POST MY FRIEND TRULY GREAT POST-Says it all

[supersmell]

We are all rational people who have looked at the EVIDENCE objectively and the facts.
Nobody on either side of the debate could possibly believe this.