10 Apr 2012 11:28:16 I saw on the news the other day that someone it… · #1018

Spot-on Matt , the murdoch media are unbelievable
( literally ) and the fact that the general public go along with it is deppressing . The BBC are much
worst than people might think , especially when it
comes to 911, they're just more subtle about it.

JR

It depends the theory I believe is that the Twin towers were chosen as a landmark to destroy because they were in effect going to be destroyed anyway because they were filled with Asbestos insulation.
Therefore the owners had a decision to make either pay to have them rid of this which would have cost many many millions and too much time moving around or they let the US government use them as a symbol as to why they should start another unpopular war in the middle east (Before people say oh but they would never harm US people to get backing for a war).You are wrong recent documents released due to the freedom of info act show that during the Cuban Missile crisis one option to gain backing for a full on invasion of Cuba and angering the communists was to pretend they had launched a missile attack on their eastern coast by blowing up national monuments of great importance therefore giving them the right to attack Cuba.
It was almost a win - win situation lets face it no one at the time had forgotten about the weapons of mass destruction fiasco and blatant lie had they so it needed to be basically big and unquestionable for the time being.

Another question and this is the most interesting one apart from the freefall timescale of the buildings.
Without prior knowledge of the attack which they claim how come in the direct aftermath did the US government in a time of national panic have the ability to send a plane with Bin Ladens family aboard to get them out of America.

You may say but he is an enemy of America and has been since he tried to blow up one of their battleships earlier on well this is where I believe he was aware he would be made a patsy a fall guy by the Americans and in turn they would I dont know maybe pay him lots.
I think Osama and America made a deal its not like they havent before and I also believe he is still alive to this very day beard shaven smoking cigars in a country of choice with millions maybe billions.All he had to do was send out a video using his group as cover stating he was the man behind it all and jobs done they have a reason to go invade any country associated with himself.
The SAS stated in interview that directly afterwards they had confirmation of Bin Laden and were tailing him in a jeep but were told to back off by American special forces does this sound like the actions of a country trying desperately to get their man or does it sound like they wanted him to escape as being captured by another country means he may spill the beans on their whole sordid operation.

Sorry for the long story hope it helps a little.

Red tinted glasses

I think all of you are right apart from bin larden being alive,i think he died many years ago from a illness(liver disease) and he would have been assainated even if he was on cia payroll,to dangerous to fall in the wrong hands.
frankyscouse

Don't forget that Bin Laden consistently denied any knowledge of the attack. He did praise whoever orchastrated the attack on 911 but never took credit for it. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad has been referred to as the "mastermind behind 911" before and after his capture by the US, without any news media questioning the title. As for Bin Laden being alive, I don't think he is. His death will be used to make sure the person they want to remain in power does so, Obama.

If Bin Laden did it, and they captured him they wouldnt want him dead, they would want to know so much info about funding, structures ascossiates the list goes on and on. Thats why when the news broke I litterally chuckled to myself, I saw the morons waving flags outside the whitehouse and singing star spangled banner and I thought to myself they deserve every pathetic lie that their government has been spoon feeding them for hundreds of years. Half of them dont even know that 3 buildings came tumbling down on 911, hence that documentary called "Building what?" in referance to wtc 7.

Matt_RFC

In line with what Red Tinted Glasses said, I think in 2000 there was a think tank including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld which concluded that the public would not lean towards war again unless there was catastrophic event such as Pearl Harbour.
A year later we had 9/11.
I didn't know until recently that geological surveys recorded the greatest amount of seismic activity in New York immediately before the towers collapsed.
This then ties in with the building collapsing inwards like a controlled explosions as opposed to falling sideways which is what you would expect.
NoneTheWiser {Ed001's Note - there is also a plan dating back to the 1950s, during the McCarthy era, suggesting flying a plane into a building and blaming it on the Commies to get more control over the populace.}

Another issue that does not get mentioned enough is that building seven of the world trade center buildings was also destroyed during this alleged terrorist attack. The official word of the day was "fire from the two towers damaged the structural integrity, therefore the building collapsed". Yet when you watch the video of this building collapsing & compare it to the myriad of buildings destroyed in Las Vegas, you can only come to the conclusion that it was destroyed by a controlled detention.

And here is where it gets really odd: 2 months prior to the "attack" the new lease holder took out an insurance policy that had a special clause "in case of terrorists attack". Larry Silverstein, got 1 billion US for WTC 7 being destroyed. He then went to court & argued that since two planes crashed into the towers it constituted two terrorist attacks, he was awarded 7 billion US. New York Citys' Office of Emergency Management or OEM also had office in WTC 7. They occupied a recently reinforced bunker-like space on the 23rd floor. Equipped with bulletproof windows, bomb-proof walls, and hurricane resistant windows, the office housed a sophisticated command center with top of the line military communication and logistical equipment.
Not to mention the Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA showed up on 9/10 & just happened to set up shop near the WTC for an "extensive simulated terrorist attack" scheduled for 9/12.

Here is a link to WTC 7:
http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_07.htm

An inside job, hell yes.

an american red

In the history of the world and I cant stress this enough THERE IS NO KNOWN RECORDING OF A STEEL STRUCTURED BUILDING COLLAPSING DUE TO FIRES.In fact years before in the great fires of Los Angeles I believe many similar buildings were completely on fire for days and not one collapsed under structural damage that was the biggest load of bulls**t about the entire story.
Aparently Jet fuel set alight causing fires that weakened the steel and caused the buildings weight to implode the building.

1)The Plane hit the top of the building so fires would be concentrated there yet and ill use simple terms if you weaken the top of a jenga only the top will fall but if you take out bottom pieces the whole thing will collapse.
Just like the controlled explosions people heard coming from the Underground car park (Their words not mine).

2)The accelerant (Jet fuel) which supposedly caused the fires has no prolonged contact with the steel it is a Flash burner and basically disintergrated instead of spreading more of an evaporation in flames.

3)The most interesting two buildings never mentioned are the THIRD trade centre a much smaller building sat beside the second.Cant remember why but this building is very important.
The Pentagon WHERE TO START WITH WHERE THOSE RETARDS F*CKED UP WITH THIS ONE IS RIDICULOUS ITS ALMOST COMICAL.
but will let everyone else have some fun with that one and fill in if people forget some hilarious facts.

Red tinted glasses

Also a fun fact and this is either the worlds biggest coincidence but no one of any IMPORTANCE was lost in any of these attacks.
In fact I believe that some meetings were changed around and all sorts to make sure these people werent even in the same states as the attacks.Be interesting to know how this got swept under the carpet.

Red tinted glasses

Theres an interesting interview with Aaron Russo where he admits David Rockerfeller told him it was going to happen as a pretext for middle east oil wars........

Matt_RFC

To be fair and I'm playing a bit of Devil's advocate here but I have a very good friend who is a building engineer. I asked him to look at the evidence surrounding the collapse of the building and he advised me that it is possible for a building to collapse like that due to the intense heat from the fuel couple with combustible materials already present in the building such as air conditioner fluids. He also mentioned something about the elevator shafts acting like a funnel or something. I reminded him the building imploded. He admitted the way it fell looked like a controlled demolition, but the reason given for the collapse is valid.
I dont go with that though.
WT7 seems to be a very significant building in all this. I believe the CIA had a centre in there which held a lot of intelligence that was 'destroyed' and I'm sure I've read somewhere that building 7 collapsed before the twin towers! Anyone else heard that?
NoneTheWiser

Building 7 actually held all the paperwork as such and held funnily enough if I remember rightly all the paperwork that had the meeting replacements on it which if it had survived would have shown basically anyone with any power rearranging their appointments on that day to the next one.
I know it had lots of other stuff as well but cant remember what the documentary said.And yes the two towers fell after this building.

Oh and None the wiser I do not doubt it is possible for a building to collapse but the fires would have to be on the ground floor not the top that is unfeasible.
And also what I said is that in the history of the world NEVER has a building collapsed due to fire.basically I think what they were saying is the elevator shafts were running through the centre where the structural main beams were but still these needed weakening at the bottom not the top.

Red tinted glasses

As I say it was just a bit of Devil's Advocate on my part.
I don't have any expertise in where the placement of the fire would have to be in order for such an implosion to occur, but to say that's it's unfeasible I have to disagree.
Our basic understanding of physics would tell us it can't be done but that's just our understanding.
Don't get me wrong I believe that the WTC's was an inside job. I believe based on the evidence I've read and seen that it was probably a controlled detonation of explosives placed in the weakest structures of the building which when detonated caused it to implode.
NoneTheWiser

If you stack some bricks in a twoer structure and hit it from the top the top will fall over and leave maybe half still remaining.

But if you hit it from the bottom then the whole thing will collapse its quite simple.

Basically I think it was said they intended to make the planes strike the bottom but the turning circles wouldnt allow it.So they struck the top instead therfore making the whole thing questionable.

Heat rises how can a fire at the top of a building weaken the bottom structurally it has no chance plus the fire needs alot of fuel ( supposedly jet fuel ) was the case but it has been proven this would have been more of a flash flame so your guess is as good as mine.
They stated in the official reports that something suspect went on this was done by independent investigators who basically debunked the whole thing as ludicrous.I mean I am not arguing with your mate like I said anything is possible but if you watch the video the planes did not damage the building that much really at all and the fires wouldnt have bought it down on itself and it collapsed in 8 sec if you dropped a penny of the top it would be around that time.
Ochams razer says that the simplest answer is usually the right one well add all the facts together that say it shouldnt have happened like that (ie loads more than written here ) to this Aplane flys into a building flown by terrorists and the buildings collapse because of the fires created.

That is all you or anyone has to go on that we see a plane go into a building we are told by others it was terrorists we are told by others how it happened would you believe them.

On another note if you still dont believe then check out the farsical cock ups they made over the pentagon one haha they used the wrong engine parts for starters when they scattered them over the area well I say scattered I mean the only thing left of the ENTIRE plane when it went into the side of the building was one engine and it was DEFINITELY not from the plane chartered to crash.

Eds do you know of any good docs the one I watched I think was something like a fist full of dollars or something with money in it.

Red tinted glasses {Ed001's Note - I can't think of any off the top of my head, I have watched a fair few that made interesting points though, so they are around.}

Your missing my point and maybe I'm not explaining my clearly.
The convential laws of physics as you and I know it, apply to what you are saying, but there is black tech out there I am sure that confounds the convential laws as we see it.
We can not say for instance that it was not HARRP that destroyed the towers. We can not say that some sort of death ray ala Independence Day caused the implosion.
All we are certain of is there were flames inside and it imploded.
So I actually agree with you about the fire but I'm saying that there COULD be an unconventional act not following the laws as we perceive them whereby a fire could do that type of damage. That's all.
Yeah and with the Pentagon that side of the building was empty due to 'refurbishment'. It is also a legal requirement in the US for fighters to be scrambled to intercept if a commercial airliner veers significantly off its flight path. This only happened after the 3rd aircraft crashed.
NoneTheWiser

The most significant fact of wtc7 is the fact that it falls at freefall speed into its own footprint. If one part was weakened it would have started to fall but its speed would be slowed down by actually hitting itself, this building was pulverised by explosives, to come down so fast it actuall had to be blown out of its own way. What about the interview where Silverstein said "We decided to pull it" you cant just decide to pull a building down so perfectly, what an person I hope he chokes on his dirty insurance money, come to think of it who paid him that money ? Anyone know, were they in on it ? It was probably down the line backed by the Fed's worthless printing machine synicate

Matt_RFC