The Facts of WTC PLANNED & CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

[pirate]

WTC Building 7 Primed for Demolition Prior to the day of September 11th 2001.

 

There is a video of "Lucky Larry" Silverstein, the owner of the WTC Complex, where he says he had a conversation with The New York Fire Dept that went something like this..."The Fire Chief rang me and said that he thought Building 7 was so badly damaged that it would be safer to "Pull It", and I replied, because there had been such loss of life that day, to go ahead and "Pull It".

 

There's 3 important points here...

 

Point 1:

To pull a building, is a term used in the Demolition Industry, referring to the Controlled Demolition of a building, so, whatever anyone says now regarding building 7 that says anything other than the fact building 7 was brought down deliberately, is arguing with what was said on the day, by the owner of the building.

 

Point 2:

To demolish a building in a controlled manner requires several weeks, even months in some cases, to plan and carefully weaken the structure of the building and strategically place explosives to safely and successfully bring the building down. It is impossible for this to have been carried out on the afternoon of 9/11 while the building was on fire, building 7 was already primed for demolition prior to that day.

 

Point 3:

When the hell did Fireman include demolition as part of their portfolio.

[sickofallthebollocks]

I'm out of forum likes,  but good post Pirate,  it sounds like you've read 'The Trigger' and probably other stuff too, it's amazing to think isn't it - that they could just decide to 'pull it'  in a matter of minutes/hours when something like a controlled demolition takes weeks to sort.

That alone (as well as countless other stuff) means guilty as charged.

How did they EVER get away with it - how did WE (meaning - the people of the world let them?



 

[pirate]

Hey sickofallthebollocks, we fell for it because what took place on 9/11 was so shocking to witness there was too much information to take in at the time, and the deep state already had their "facts" prefabricated.  It was only when we revisited the so called "facts" with the help of structural engineers, architects, demolition experts, firemen, pilots, and first hand witnesses who were there that we woke up and realised it was an inside job.  None, and I mean none, of the official statements put out by the US BUSH ADMINISTRATION and the corrupt MSM bear any resemblance to the reality of 9/11...that for me was and is the catalyst for today's world of lies and twisted half truth's.

That day, and the month's that followed were the blueprint of bullshit that we are now afflicted with.

 

https://www.ae911truth.org/

 

[wideawake]

@pirate

 

Good post but that was brought up many times over the years but a video I watched a while back on bitchute ( can't find it now, darn) was about this lady who was supposed to work on building 7 for repairs or something prior to 9/11. She said the company she worked for, needed the structural drawings of WTC7 to accomplish their work and according to her everybody knew that the building was wired for demolition. 

I should've saved that video. If true, many are keeping quiet... hmm

[bamboozooka]

who was the general who went to chaney's office and saw all the plans laid out on chaneys desk?

[pirate]

General Wesley Clark...

 

 

[pirate]

THE OWNER OF WTC BUILDINGS 1, 2 & 7, LARRY SILVERSTEIN, ADMITTED ON CAMERA HE GAVE THE OK TO "PULL" (DEMOLISH) BUILDING 7, can't understand why there are any further questions concerning building 7...and NIST just make it up as they go along.

[pirate]

Facts are often repeated when Cognitive Dissonance is in play.

[pirate]

Apparently they think they've "debunked" yet another simple truth that slipped out that day.

 

 

Now have a look at this analysis in the link below...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein_pullit.html

 

Just one of many verifying that the term "Pull It" in demolition speak means...err...to pull a building down or demolish it...

why would the FDNY need Lucky Larry's permission to pull out the firefighters who they now claim were in building 7...no firefighters were in building 7.

 

 

[pirate]

All the Evidence you need from the Professionals...

 

EVIDENCE    -  9/11: Experts Speak Out | Individual Chapters - video gallery
 

These people have been working tirelessly for the past 19 years trying to open a new investigation.

[Haunted Universe]

Building 7 was one of New York City's larger buildings. A sleek bronze-colored skyscraper with a trapezoidal footprint, it occupied an entire city block and rose over 600 feet above street level. Built in 1985, it was formerly the headquarters of the junk-bond firm Drexel Burnham Lambert, which contributed to the Savings and Loans collapse, prompting the $500-billion taxpayer-underwritten bailout of the latter 1980s. At the time of its destruction, it exclusively housed government agencies and financial institutions. It contained offices of the IRS, Secret Service, and SEC.

 

One of the most interesting tenants was then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command center on the 23rd floor. This floor received 15 million dollars worth of renovations, including independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds. The 1993 bombing must have been part of the rationale for the command center, which overlooked the Twin Towers, a prime terrorist target.

 

How curious that on the day of the attack, Guiliani and his entourage set up shop in a different headquarters, abandoning the special bunker designed precisely for such an event

[pirate]

On 8/13/2020 at 3:36 AM, Haunted Universe said:

Building 7 was one of New York City's larger buildings. A sleek bronze-colored skyscraper with a trapezoidal footprint, it occupied an entire city block and rose over 600 feet above street level.

 

Yes, all of that and, ideas have been put forward for years about how the reinforced part of the building could have been used as the command centre to remotely fly in the planes that hit the Twin Towers, Operation Northwoods style.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

 

http://www.911review.com/precedent/century/northwoods.html

 

 

 

 

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/videos/category/25-9-11-experts-speak-out-individual-chapters

[mishy]

6 minutes ago, pirate said:

 

Yes, all of that and, ideas have been put forward for years about how the reinforced part of the building could have been used as the command centre to remotely fly in the planes that hit the Twin Towers, Operation Northwoods style.

 

There were no planes and none of the footage from that day can be tusted. None of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF0-nslm3j0

[pirate]

12 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

There were no planes and none of the footage from that day can be tusted. None of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF0-nslm3j0

Yeah I've heard that a million times...

Of course there were planes, don't fall for the smokescreen of no planes...thousands of people who were actually there saw and heard planes.

[mishy]

5 minutes ago, pirate said:

Yeah I've heard that a million times...

Of course there were planes, don't fall for the smokescreen of no planes...thousands of people who were actually there saw and heard planes.

 

You clearly haven't watched the vid in the link I posted. No planes. Empty towers and few, if any victims.

 

http://cluesforum.info/

 

 

 

[pirate]

15 minutes ago, pirate said:

Yeah I've heard that a million times...

Of course there were planes, don't fall for the smokescreen of no planes...thousands of people who were actually there saw and heard planes.

Here is a small sample of the radar data for that day...

 

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/WTC1.html

[mishy]

And that proves what? They can add a blip or two to radar?

 

We have both TV and amateur footage of the plane crashes. They just don't stand up to scrutiny., and many contradict each other.

 

There's absolutely nothing you can post that will prove the existence of planes that day. It's been done to death.

 

Just watch September Clues. It wasn't just the planes that were fake.

 

http://cluesforum.info/

 

[pirate]

45 minutes ago, mishy said:

And that proves what? They can add a blip or two to radar?

And they could have added a bullshit blip or two into your head.

And that cluesforum should be renamed clueless forum if that's what they're telling you.

 

There is an abundance of LIVE VIDEO, SHOT ON THE DAY, and information from hundreds of eye witnesses who saw and heard planes that day...granted they weren't the actual passenger planes everyone thought they were but purpose built military planes built specifically for the job.  The no planes theory is a psyop designed to distract you from the actual facts...the title of this thread is...

"The Facts of WTC PLANNED & CONTROLLED DEMOLITION"

[mishy]

4 hours ago, pirate said:

And they could have added a bullshit blip or two into your head.

And that cluesforum should be renamed clueless forum if that's what they're telling you.

 

There is an abundance of LIVE VIDEO, SHOT ON THE DAY, and information from hundreds of eye witnesses who saw and heard planes that day...granted they weren't the actual passenger planes everyone thought they were but purpose built military planes built specifically for the job.  The no planes theory is a psyop designed to distract you from the actual facts...the title of this thread is...

"The Facts of WTC PLANNED & CONTROLLED DEMOLITION"

 

 

1/10 Poor effort. I've posted both a video and a link to an entire forum and this is the best reply you can come up with? Rupert?

 

I'm fully aware of the thread title - I was just pulling you up on the military plane bollocks.

[EnigmaticWorld]

4 hours ago, pirate said:

The no planes theory is a psyop designed to distract you from the actual facts..

 

The fact that many people seem to spend ages debating how the buildings came down and not why or who benefits seems to be the real psyop to me.

 

I can kind of understand it though as many are scared to address the elephant in the room details.

[pirate]

1 hour ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

The fact that many people seem to spend ages debating how the buildings came down and not why or who benefits seems to be the real psyop to me.

 

I can kind of understand it though as many are scared to address the elephant in the room details.

Good post but, it is well known who benefited, and I started this thread highlighting one of the main beneficiaries... Lucky Larry Silverstein, the owner of buildings 1, 2 & 3 but was sidetracked by bullshit about no planes involved, I will not be drawn into such drivel.

[EnigmaticWorld]

Just now, pirate said:

Good post but, it is well known who benefited, and I started this thread highlighting one of the main beneficiaries... Lucky Larry Silverstein, the owner of buildings 1, 2 & 3 but was sidetracked by bullshit about no planes involved, I will not be drawn into such drivel.

 

It's cool, I'm not talking about people on fringe forums like this, I'm talking about the general public.

[pirate]

17 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

It's cool, I'm not talking about people on fringe forums like this, I'm talking about the general public.

It is still vitally important that we focus on how the buildings were brought down however when people are still banging on about no planes and empty buildings etc after all these years ..elephant in the room..?

Who benefited is largely a mute point...there are several vids on that subject, but the most important subject is still HOW the building's were turned into dust...the planes were just an initial focal point/distraction but caused minimal damage...if and when it is proved how the building's were brought down, the official narrative will in turn be dust.

We have to prove the crimes were committed first, then go after the suspects.

 

Edited August 14, 2020 by pirate
addition

[EnigmaticWorld]

14 minutes ago, pirate said:

It is still vitally important that we focus on how the buildings were brought down however when people are still banging on about no planes and empty buildings etc after all these years ..elephant in the room..?

Who benefited is largely a mute point...there are several vids on that subject, but the most important subject is still HOW the building's were turned into dust...the planes were just an initial focal point/distraction but caused minimal damage...if and when it is proved how the building's were brought down, the official narrative will in turn be dust.

 

 

By elephant in the room I mean exactly what you're saying in regards to people like Silverstein and his pals. Most normies don't talk about that stuff, they just post jet fuel can't melt steel beam memes and stuff.

 

Obviously most of us here understand that the attack on those buildings was to drum up support from Western people to attack and destabilize Middle Eastern nations, which then created a vacuum where terror cells could grow, and it also created resentment for Westerners amongst those cells. Then they push those people into the West and feed them anti-Western propaganda to create a conflict on our doorstep. If normies haven't figured that out yet then they probably never will.

 

Edit: Also a pretext for more mass surveillance, although that was one of the more obvious consequences.

Edited August 14, 2020 by EnigmaticWorld

[pirate]

19 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

By elephant in the room I mean exactly what you're saying in regards to people like Silverstein and his pals. Most normies don't talk about that stuff, they just post jet fuel can't melt steel beam memes and stuff.

You're bang on there mate...the plane issue on the whole is a mute point as well...mishy and others have made some good points about mini nukes thermite etc, these points are the nitty gritty of how the buildings were brought down and it is imperative that we get these facts across to those still ignorant of these important facts.