Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-09-2011, 05:40 PM   #21
air_bn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,430
Likes: 3 (2 Posts)
Default

Building 7 certainly had an interesting history of construction:

air_bn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2011, 10:28 PM   #22
anyhoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crystalline View Post
It would stand to reason that if WTC 7 was the centre of operations, and everything was being orchestrated from there it would need to be demolished to dissolve all evidence of its existence.

A good enough reason to choose to "pull it".
Correct, but my original question in this thread is how did they justify it collapsing straight down into its own footprint? Even to a "not too bright" American public, this should be suspicious. I say "should be", because its apparently not suspicious at all to the majority of Amercans, assuming they even know or give a fuck about it. What was the cover story to explain this? No cover story was given. It just happened, without explanation. And I agree that the building was not tall enough to have that fourth plane hit it. Surely they had a plan but something went wrong and it never materialized. What was the plan?
__________________
Lies are weapons that they use against us. Belief in those lies are the chains they use to bind us. This includes Fear. Knowledge is the key to unlocking those chains and is also a shield that makes their weapons useless.

Last edited by anyhoo; 06-09-2011 at 10:30 PM.
anyhoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2011, 11:15 PM   #23
air_bn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,430
Likes: 3 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anyhoo View Post
Correct, but my original question in this thread is how did they justify it collapsing straight down into its own footprint? Even to a "not too bright" American public, this should be suspicious. I say "should be", because its apparently not suspicious at all to the majority of Amercans, assuming they even know or give a fuck about it. What was the cover story to explain this? No cover story was given. It just happened, without explanation. And I agree that the building was not tall enough to have that fourth plane hit it. Surely they had a plan but something went wrong and it never materialized. What was the plan?
If memory serves me right,the explanation given was building 7 was of an unusual design, not just a standard type high rise steel framed skyscraper.Because of that it was vulnerable to damage at it's centre columns
that resulted in it's demise due to the impact of debris from the North Tower
collapse.
Regardless of a few belated video/images showing this damage,
Building 7 was going down regardless.Most people (anywhere) given that explanation would say "oh well".

Very old link:
http://www.wtc7.net/collapsecause.html
air_bn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2011, 12:01 AM   #24
anyhoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by air_bn View Post
If memory serves me right,the explanation given was building 7 was of an unusual design, not just a standard type high rise steel framed skyscraper.Because of that it was vulnerable to damage at it's centre columns
that resulted in it's demise due to the impact of debris from the North Tower
collapse.
Regardless of a few belated video/images showing this damage,
Building 7 was going down regardless.Most people (anywhere) given that explanation would say "oh well".

Very old link:
http://www.wtc7.net/collapsecause.html
I don't care what most people say, because most people are stupid and/or don't give a fuck. What do you say?
__________________
Lies are weapons that they use against us. Belief in those lies are the chains they use to bind us. This includes Fear. Knowledge is the key to unlocking those chains and is also a shield that makes their weapons useless.
anyhoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2011, 07:08 PM   #25
air_bn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,430
Likes: 3 (2 Posts)
Default

I say compare and contrast what is easily debunkable, with what is not.
I've not seen all the vids on this users page, but I'd say it's certainly significant comments are disabled due to abuse (YT of all places LOL) on a couple here, especially the Flight 77 simulation vid!!!!!

air_bn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2011, 04:54 AM   #26
anyhoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Let me explain Larry Silverstein's statement once and for all so we can put all falsehoods and misdirections behind us. Here are the facts:

1. Larry Silverstein is a Satanists.
2. Most of the people in positions of power and authority in America in government, industry, banking, entertainment, whatever other categories exist, are Satanists. Many other people not in power are Satanists also.
3. When Larry Silverstein gave his interview, he was being completely truthful. He said the decision was made to pull and they pulled.
4. Larry Silverstein's interview was meant for Satanist ears, who already know the truth of 9-11. There is no conspiracy for them, because they have known about 9-11 since way before it happened. What Larry Silverstein said makes no sense at all relative to the official explanation but it makes perfect sense if you explain it in these terms.
__________________
Lies are weapons that they use against us. Belief in those lies are the chains they use to bind us. This includes Fear. Knowledge is the key to unlocking those chains and is also a shield that makes their weapons useless.
anyhoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2011, 08:43 AM   #27
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anyhoo View Post
What Larry Silverstein said makes no sense at all relative to the official explanation but it makes perfect sense if you explain it in these terms.
You've got it the wrong way round. What Silverstein said supports the official story and contradicts the pre-planned demolition theory.
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2011, 05:27 PM   #28
anyhoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
You've got it the wrong way round. What Silverstein said supports the official story and contradicts the pre-planned demolition theory.
Actually I don't have it wrong. Either you already know that or you want to believe in a cover story that is easily dismissable bullshit.
__________________
Lies are weapons that they use against us. Belief in those lies are the chains they use to bind us. This includes Fear. Knowledge is the key to unlocking those chains and is also a shield that makes their weapons useless.

Last edited by anyhoo; 08-09-2011 at 05:31 PM.
anyhoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2011, 06:06 PM   #29
air_bn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,430
Likes: 3 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anyhoo View Post
Let me explain Larry Silverstein's statement once and for all so we can put all falsehoods and misdirections behind us. Here are the facts:

1. Larry Silverstein is a Satanists.
2. Most of the people in positions of power and authority in America in government, industry, banking, entertainment, whatever other categories exist, are Satanists. Many other people not in power are Satanists also.
3. When Larry Silverstein gave his interview, he was being completely truthful. He said the decision was made to pull and they pulled.
4. Larry Silverstein's interview was meant for Satanist ears, who already know the truth of 9-11. There is no conspiracy for them, because they have known about 9-11 since way before it happened. What Larry Silverstein said makes no sense at all relative to the official explanation but it makes perfect sense if you explain it in these terms.
ah,are those the facts you talk about in public?

Don't you find it odd the clean up firm were Controlled Demolitions Inc,as well as Silverstein using the term "pull"?
air_bn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2011, 06:39 PM   #30
whatsinaname
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,294
Likes: 993 (496 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by air_bn View Post

Don't you find it odd the clean up firm were Controlled Demolitions Inc,as well as Silverstein using the term "pull"?
Don't you find it odd that we were allowed to know about either of them?

They know what they're doing, you know.

They both back up the official story of there being no pre-planted explosives.

They are both so called "smoking guns" in 9/11 truth
They're both "smoking guns" that have been intentionally slipped out, to cover their arses for the next move.

They both back up the 'soon to be official' story of the building having to be brought down by controlled demolition, on the day, due to it being unstable.
whatsinaname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2011, 06:42 PM   #31
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by air_bn View Post
ah,are those the facts you talk about in public?
The public will have no problem accepting the idea that the leaseholder of the WTC gives out coded messages to satanists in interviews.

But don't mention TV fakery!

bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2011, 06:47 PM   #32
mishy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 54 (42 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
The public will have no problem accepting the idea that the leaseholder of the WTC gives out coded messages to satanists in interviews.

But don't mention TV fakery!


lol
__________________
mishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2011, 06:57 PM   #33
air_bn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,430
Likes: 3 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whatsinaname View Post
Don't you find it odd that we were allowed to know about either of them?

They know what they're doing, you know.

They both back up the official story of there being no pre-planted explosives.

They are both so called "smoking guns" in 9/11 truth
They're both "smoking guns" that have been intentionally slipped out, to cover their arses for the next move.

They both back up the 'soon to be official' story of the building having to be brought down by controlled demolition, on the day, due to it being unstable.
They both put it out the idea there were brought down by explosives!

"soon to be official" no I don't think so.

Have you seen the construction designs of the buildings at all?
air_bn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2011, 07:20 PM   #34
whatsinaname
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,294
Likes: 993 (496 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by air_bn View Post
They both put it out the idea there were brought down by explosives!

"soon to be official" no I don't think so.

Have you seen the construction designs of the buildings at all?
Yes, exactly!

Why would they want to put out the idea that building 7 was brought down with explosives, when it seemingly goes against the official version of events?

They did....but why would they?

I'm only talking about building 7. They have the story for the towers already.

Will looking at the constrction design help me in any way?
whatsinaname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2011, 07:27 PM   #35
air_bn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,430
Likes: 3 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whatsinaname View Post
Yes, exactly!

Why would they want to put out the idea that building 7 was brought down with explosives, when it seemingly goes against the official version of events?

They did....but why would they?

I'm only talking about building 7. They have the story for the towers already.

Will looking at the construction design help me in any way?
Might explain the exact method of destruction and the realisation that Building 7 could be/is yet another strawman?
air_bn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2011, 08:09 PM   #36
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by air_bn View Post
Might explain the exact method of destruction and the realisation that Building 7 could be/is yet another strawman?
Do you want to give us a laugh and explain that exact method of destruction? Let me start you off:

Long-span floor trusses thermally expanded, then...
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2011, 10:54 PM   #37
anyhoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
The public will have no problem accepting the idea that the leaseholder of the WTC gives out coded messages to satanists in interviews.

But don't mention TV fakery!

There wasn't anything coded about what Larry Silverstein said. He spoke the uncoded truth.
__________________
Lies are weapons that they use against us. Belief in those lies are the chains they use to bind us. This includes Fear. Knowledge is the key to unlocking those chains and is also a shield that makes their weapons useless.
anyhoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2011, 06:25 PM   #38
air_bn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,430
Likes: 3 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
Do you want to give us a laugh and explain that exact method of destruction? Let me start you off:

Long-span floor trusses thermally expanded, then...
I think we need to re-examine all the evidence without predjudice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by anyhoo View Post
There wasn't anything coded about what Larry Silverstein said. He spoke the uncoded truth.
Yes I agree he did speak the truth.
air_bn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:15 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.