BBC Aware of WTC7 collapse 23 mins before it does!

[December]

WTC7 building reported as collapsed on TV 23 minutes BEFORE it fell. Building is in the video while interview is taking place.

VIDEO -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88_tYTFUA2s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GEAnn3uN30

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-wtc7-lg.jpg

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Hogwash.
2. Islam did 911, no one else.
3. You bastards own it!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Mayberry]

:rolleyes: Whatever.

[Drocket]

All that shows is that there was a whole lot of confusion during that time. There were ALL kind of wild rumors flying around on 9/11, from the White House having been hit to the military having shot down several other hijacked planes. The fact that there was a miscommunication/misunderstanding about what building(s) had collapsed and which ones didn't is pretty understandable in the heat of the moment.

Quite frankly, this is the sort of conspiracy theory that makes conspiracy theories in general look pretty stupid. For a conspiracy to be even remotely plausible, you need to involve as few of people as possible. If you're actually going to claim that the BBC was in on the theory, though, then you've just widen the number of people who know about the conspiracy massively. The old saying, "three people can keep a secret, as long as two of them are dead" comes into play here. If you're going to go around telling everyone about your plot ahead of time, the odds of it being a secret are essentially zero.

And seriously, what possible reason would there be to involve the BBC in the plot? You're suggesting that the conspirators decided to involve a *news organization* in their super-secret plot? Seriously? Why not just phone up CNN and the AP while they're at it?

[Mayberry]

You're suggesting that the conspirators decided to involve a *news organization* in their super-secret plot? Seriously? Why not just phone up CNN and the AP while they're at it? Heh heh heh. Point and match.

[jafar00]

It makes you wonder though how they can keep going on about WTC7 collapsing when they have it sitting there, still intact behind the reporter who is reporting about it's collapse. I don't think the BBC knew about it beforehand, but perhaps the pre-prepared press release on it's collapse was inadvertently released to the media early by the propaganda machine. A big oopsy?

[Drocket]

I don't think the BBC knew about it beforehand, but perhaps the pre-prepared press release on it's collapse was inadvertently released to the media early by the propaganda machine. A big oopsy?

But that still makes absolutely no sense. What conspirator in their right mind would make up a press release in advance for something that hadn't happened yet? All that does is create evidence that the event was pre-planned. If building 7 collapses, the news organizations will figure it out themselves. What, you think the news media, who had about 15,000 cameras circling the area by that point, might not notice that a building collapsed and have to get a nudge from the people who destroyed it?

[December]

Here's another good video - WTC 7 Explosive Energy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qWFVzBdM5s&mode=related&search=

[wonder cow]

It was well known that WTC 7 was in trouble. It was being reported most of the afternoon 9/11/2001. At some point a report comes across on CNN quoting a fire chief as saying that there is a bulge in WTC 7 and that it is in danger of collapsing and very close to collapsing.

As is the norm with journalism and reporting, several reports on various TV stations and news agencies go out that WTC 7 is close to collapsing. One of the BBC reports states that "either collapsed or is collapsing..and now we're told that the building is on fire and may collapse as well".

Then that statement is run through a couple of other reports until you get the BBC world service version in your video clip. Nothing more than a screw up.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But you nailed it *Wonder Cow*.
2. Like, ( I ), *The Great CWN*, said early on, the falling of the Twin Towers, right next to this and other building, the shear mass of them, knocked buildings off their foundations.
3. Hence the bulge in the building in question.
4. Once that happens, then gravity takes its course.
5. The shear weight of a structure that size, can't afford to be off balance.
6. It has to go down.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[jafar00]

So why did WTC 3,4,5, and 6 have to be brought down by demolition teams then? Why didn't all the other buildings in the surrounding area collapse like a house of cards? What about the buildings that were still standing (or only partly collapsed) as burned out shells despite being damaged extensively by falling debris and raging fires?

[Mayberry]

So why did WTC 3,4,5, and 6 have to be brought down by demolition teams then? Because their structures were weakened by the other tower's collapses, but apparently not enough to fall on their own. Why didn't all the other buildings in the surrounding area collapse like a house of cards? Why is the sky blue? They weren't damaged enough to fall. Pretty simple concept. What about the buildings that were still standing (or only partly collapsed) as burned out shells despite being damaged extensively by falling debris and raging fires? Same answer as the last question.

[December]

There is a site about WTC 7 collapse:

Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper.

The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed.

Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?

http://www.wtc7.net

VIDEO -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88_tYTFUA2s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GEAnn3uN30

http://www.911sharethetruth.com/images/wtc-7.gif

[jafar00]

So why did WTC 3,4,5, and 6 have to be brought down by demolition teams then? Because their structures were weakened by the other tower's collapses, but apparently not enough to fall on their own.


They were certainly more damaged than WTC7 was and they were closer to tower 1&2's collapse.

WTC 5&6
http://www.attivissimo.net/11settembre/wtc7/wtc6-wtc5-resti.jpg

WTC 4

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB092306/index_files/image026.jpg

WTC 3 - Note HUGE gouge but no complete collapse.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/fig-3-7A.jpg

These buildings had 110 story towers fall on them and suffered fires, but stayed for the most part, standing. Why?

[Mayberry]

If you call that "standing". Not much left in those pictures (2 pics didn't show up here). As they say, "that's the way the cookie crumbles". There are so many variables in building construction that there is no way to difinitively say why things happened the way they did. One batch of concrete is different from the next. One steel beam is different from the next. Nothing is perfect, and tiny imperfections can become large ones when subjected to stress. There are air bubbles in concrete. Hairline fractures in steel. Steel not properly tempered. An imperfect weld. A flawed bolt. It would be interesting to see a Richter scale reading from ground zero when the towers went down. Had to be a tremendous quake caused by all that coming down. As we all know, siesmic activity (natural or man made) causes massive damage to buildings, especially those not built to be earth quake resistant. Surely there was a large, localized quake when the towers fell. You can feel the ground move when a big truck drives by, or near train tracks. These events are miniscule compared to the rumbling of two sky scrapers coming down. Concrete cracked. Steel cracked and deformed. Fire destroyed the steel's temper, making it brittle. Lots of little flaws combined, and were subjected to massive stress, and caused the massive structural failures. I've seen a hairline crack in an aluminum boat cause the boat to fold in half and sink in heavy seas. The wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald freighter on the great lakes shows what happens when structures are subjected to enormous stresses they weren't designed to handle (or maybe that was a government plot as well :P).[/quote]

[jafar00]

If you call that "standing". Not much left in those pictures (2 pics didn't show up here). As they say, "that's the way the cookie crumbles". There are so many variables in building construction that there is no way to difinitively say why things happened the way they did. One batch of concrete is different from the next. One steel beam is different from the next. Nothing is perfect, and tiny imperfections can become large ones when subjected to stress. There are air bubbles in concrete. Hairline fractures in steel. Steel not properly tempered. An imperfect weld. A flawed bolt.

Yes, not much left, but no complete collapse into themselves. There must have been some pretty bad workmanship gone into towers 1,2 and 7 by your reckoning. Especially 7 which suffered minimal damage. The third building in history to collapse freefall due to fire(1&2 were the first and second).


It would be interesting to see a Richter scale reading from ground zero when the towers went down. Had to be a tremendous quake caused by all that coming down.


Here's a seismograph for you. Note the huge spikes PRECEEDING the collapse of the towers and many times stronger than the collapse event itself even as debris reached the ground. It suggests some sort of massive explosion or mass collapse event before the towers hit the ground. I have read in several places, the local richter scale readings during the collapses were recorded as 2.5 scale quakes. I don't know if you have experienced a tremor, but 2.5 is relatively small. I experienced such a tremor in Japan a few years ago. You could hardly feel it.

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/imgs/seismic-wave-24.gif

[Mayberry]

Here's a seismograph for you. Ummm.... Where?

[jafar00]

More fires in large buildings. None of these collapsed. Why did WTC7?

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm

[Truth_and_Power]

More fires in large buildings. None of these collapsed. Why did WTC7?

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm



We'd like that seismograph evidence you mentioned.

[jafar00]

More fires in large buildings. None of these collapsed. Why did WTC7?

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm



We'd like that seismograph evidence you mentioned.


All my pictures have disappeared. I'll find another

[December]

More fires in large buildings. None of these collapsed. Why did WTC7?

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm


That's right...

This building had same design as the WTC but withstood a blazing two day fire.

http://rense.com/1.imagesG/neqs.jpg

[Mayberry]

This building had same design as the WTC but withstood a blazing two day fire.

OK. Was it hit by a jumbo jet, and was the fire accelerated by tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel? More fires in large buildings. None of these collapsed. Why did WTC7?
Already explained it.

[December]

Empire State Building Withstood Airplane Impact

The World Trade Center towers were not the first of New York’s skyscrapers to be hit by an airplane. In 1945, the Empire State Building withstood the impact of a U.S. Army Air Corps B-25 bomber.
Fourteen lives were lost, but the steel structure remained standing after the unarmed trainer plane slammed into the building’s 79th floor. The accident was ruled by authorities to be caused by pilot error, after Lieutenant Colonel William F. Smith Jr., a decorated veteran of World War II and experienced pilot, apparently lost his way in the dense fog that had enveloped Manhattan that Saturday morning in July. Smith was flying the twin-engine bomber from his home in Bedford, Massachusetts to Newark, New Jersey, where he had planned to pick up his commanding officer before continuing on to home base in South Dakota. Smith had been scheduled to land at La Guardia Airport, and the air traffic controller directed him to do so. Smith, however, asked for and received permission to land in Newark instead. The last words the air traffic controller spoke to Smith were ‘At the present time, I can’t see the top of the Empire State Building,’ according to the Empire State Building’s web site.

READ MORE -

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News8-0112.html


VIDEO -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88_tYTFUA2s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GEAnn3uN30

[AlonzoMourning23]

Ya know, if the conspiracy nuts are ignored eventually they'll have no one to talk to but their own reflections.

[Mayberry]

Ya know, if the conspiracy nuts are ignored eventually they'll have no one to talk to but their own reflections.

True, but it sure is fun debunking their nonsense! In 1945, the Empire State Building withstood the impact of a U.S. Army Air Corps B-25 bomber.
OK. A B-25 is about 1/4 the size of the aircraft that hit the towers, and carried nowhere near the fuel these planes did. Data from Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II[6]

General characteristics
Crew: six (two pilots, navigator/bombardier, turret gunner/engineer, radio operator/waist gunner, tail gunner
Length: 52 ft 11 in (16.1 m)
Wingspan: 67 ft 6 in (20.6 m)
Height: 17 ft 7 in (4.8 m)
Wing area: 610 ft² (57 m²)
Empty weight: 21,120 lb (9,580 kg)
Loaded weight: 33,510 lb (15,200 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 41,800 lb (19,000 kg)
Powerplant: 2× Wright R-2600 "Cyclone" radials, 1,850 hp (1,380 kW) each
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Mitchell#Specifications_.28B-25J.29 Technical

Characteristics -- Boeing 767-200ER
Passenger Seating Configuration
Typical 3-class
Typical 2-class
Typical 1-class
181
224
up to 255
Cargo 2,925 cu ft (82.9 cu m)
Engines
maximum thrust Pratt & Whitney PW4000
60,200 lb

GE CF6-80C2
62,100 lb
Maximum Fuel Capacity 23,980 U.S. gal (90,770 L)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 395,000 lb (179,170 kg)
Maximum Range 6,590 nautical miles (12,200 km)

Typical city pairs:
New York to Beijing
Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet Mach 0.80 (530 mph, 851 kph)
Basic Dimensions
Wing Span
Overall Length
Tail Height
Interior Cabin Width
156 ft 1 in (47.6 m)
159 ft 2 in (48.5 m)
52 ft (15.8 m)
15 ft 6 in (4.7 m)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html So let's see here. Jet fuel weighs approximately 7 lb. per gallon. A 767 carries 23,980 U.S. gal. That equals 167,860 pounds, or 4 times the maximum takeoff weight of a B-25. That's right folks, just the fuel on a Boeing 767 weighs four times as much as a B-25. Not much of a comparison, now is it?

[jafar00]

This building had same design as the WTC but withstood a blazing two day fire.

OK. Was it hit by a jumbo jet, and was the fire accelerated by tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel?

No, but the WTC 1 & 2 were actually designed to survive multiple impacts from jet liners. And the fuel you mentioned... did you notice the big fireball coming out of the side of the buildings as the planes hit? There goes most of your fuel. In a puff of smoke.

More fires in large buildings. None of these collapsed. Why did WTC7?
Already explained it.
[/quote]

No you didn't. WTC was neither hit by an aircraft, nor was it filled with jet fuel, yet it spontaneously pulverised in seconds.

[Mayberry]

No you didn't. Yes, I did. In the other thread on this subject I explained all that you mentioned.

[Achilles]

Ya know, if the conspiracy nuts are ignored eventually they'll have no one to talk to but their own reflections.


Its a good thing people with open ears listen.

We've heard the official story.

We've heard the theorists story.

Honestly, the theorists have put soo many holes in the offical story that it looks like it was shot with a minigun.

So let's see you patch that story up and match every point the theorists make.
I've seen very few "patches" so far.

[Mayberry]

Honestly, the theorists have put soo many holes in the offical story that it looks like it was shot with a minigun.
Hahahaha! Thanks for the laugh, I needed that! I've seen very few "patches" so far. Then you haven't been following the other thread on this subject, where I've soundly stomped this ridiculous theory into the dirt.

[Labrocca]

The 9/11 theorists just won't shut up..that's the problem. Even at sites like youtube they have gone to great lengths to get their propaganda out. This site proves it. There is an agenda by these nutjobs to join forums, invade blogs, and repeat the same old nonsense to everyone that listens in the hope they convince people that a conspiracy did occur. Is it working? Ask Rosie O'Donell.

[BoogyMan]

The 9/11 "truthers" are out there doing their thing on a daily basis and the world is watching them with pity for the ignorance they evidence.

A gathering of such loons is depicted below:

http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/Pictures/tinfoil1.jpg

[Labrocca]

I wouldn't use the term "truthers" to describe them. TRUTH is the last thing they really care about. They have hijacked that word for their movement and are tarnishing it to the point where the "truth" can't be trusted.

[Achilles]

Honestly, the theorists have put soo many holes in the offical story that it looks like it was shot with a minigun.
Hahahaha! Thanks for the laugh, I needed that! I've seen very few "patches" so far. Then you haven't been following the other thread on this subject, where I've soundly stomped this ridiculous theory into the dirt.


Im glad to entertain you.

Heres some things you missed, I'll point 'em out to you.
I've seen these points raised time after time in DF.

Just before the collapse, there was a white smoke emerging from the base of the structure. What was it? Why was it there? Did it have anything to do with the collapse?

If the Twin towers fell at freefall speed, then the collapse was obviously not a pancaking. So if it wasn't a pancaking, where was the structure weakened?

There are reports of mutiple explosions on 9/11 that were heard coming from the base of the building. So why were explosions coming from the base if the only explosions came from the upper stories of the twin towers where the planes hit? you tell me.

If you watch the footage of the Twin Towers falling, you can make out the "squibs" as controlled demolition workers call them. These squibs stay ahead of the collapse wave. I wonder why?

From a camera mounted on a tripod on top of a building close to the WTC, footage was taken of the towers falling. The tripod shakes just before the collapse. So what caused the shake? Why was it just before the collapse? Where did it come from?

Larry Silverstein explained in an interview that he gave the order to destroy WTC7 using controlled demolition. How would it take to put all those charges in place to collapse the building? Had to have been proir 9/11 cuz i dont think workers could concentrate with the freakin towers crashing down.

I hope it would take too much out of your time to "stomped this rediculous theory." I would like to see an explanation for this.
I'll bring more points to you on the other aspects of 9/11 if manage to debunk this

[Achilles]

I wouldn't use the term "truthers" to describe them. TRUTH is the last thing they really care about. They have hijacked that word for their movement and are tarnishing it to the point where the "truth" can't be trusted.


Judging someone without seeing things through their eyes and beliefs is one of my defentions of ignorance, Labrocca. From this post, you obviously havent seen the other side and therefore are not fully informed.
And dont be so quick to label theorists Evil because they misuse the "Truth."
Hell, all one needs to do to misuse the truth is misinterpret it. When one conciously misinterprets the truth, thats the real crime.

We say what we believe as one would preach how they believe their religion

[Labrocca]

A) Didn't call theorist EVIL
B) I believe I have watched every conspiracy theory video available
C) I was really there

[Achilles]

I mean no offense, Labrocca, but what does you being there have to do with anything. I dont see how it improves your argument.

[Labrocca]

Because there have been statements about the event where being an eye-witness means I can verify what is actually true.

[Achilles]

You cant verify everything, however. There were individuals in certain locations that could have observed something you didnt simply because they were looking at it from a different perspective

[Labrocca]

You cant verify everything, however. There were individuals in certain locations that could have observed something you didnt simply because they were looking at it from a different perspective


So when you can't verify you assume a government conspiracy?

[Achilles]

You cant verify everything, however. There were individuals in certain locations that could have observed something you didnt simply because they were looking at it from a different perspective


So when you can't verify you assume a government conspiracy?


I assume the possiblity of a government conspiracy when I hear numorious eye-witness reports, videos, and past records of when a plane hits a building.

I'm not one to dig up dirt on our government because I dont like them.

[quiet man]

digging up dirt on the government is fun. the pile is so big i don;t know whereto start?

[Labrocca]

I assume the possiblity of a government conspiracy when I hear numorious eye-witness reports, videos, and past records of when a plane hits a building.

I'm not one to dig up dirt on our government because I dont like them.


Have you spoken with these eye-witnesses yourself? Or just watched edited videos that have an agenda? What credible news agencies have reported or even hinted at a conspiracy? Have you read the Popular Mechanics article that debunks many of the "theories" in the conspiracy?

Popular Mechanics has been in print since 1902.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

[firefox]

OMG it's the NWO! They are hiding under your bed RIGHT NOW along with Osama bin Laden and the aliens who built the pyramids! Man, these 9/11 Truthers are all the same...

[Achilles]

I'll admit that most theorists are complete wackos.
All I stress is that you all dont completely shut out the possiblity.
I'm positive that a section of this theory have got you thinkin at least.
If not....well, i guess im wrong

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Yup, your wrong.
2. I'm still not thinking.
3. Hehehehehe,.......

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Achilles]

Thanx chess

[Labrocca]

9/11 conspiracy theorists have created an entire slew of possibilities...so far to the point that NONE can be believed. It stands to reason that if you make up a few theories that are false then the rest of the theories are baseless as well.

It's as-if they learned their mistake from JFK assassination...the 2nd gunman theory wasn't enough...they should have created a 3rd gunman, involve the driver, make the police look like they were in on it..blah blah blah.

Honestly...people just don't want to believe a simple truth that we were attacked by some extremist muslims. They planned one of the most simple low-tech attacks in history that was extremely effective. They get an A+ for terrorism in my book. Theorists just love to find scapegoats and create theories. It's what they do best.

You should always believe the simplest truth because most likely...that is the truth.

Take the Iraq war...people like to say it's not about Oil...of COURSE IT IS. Now to what degree we might argue about but no one is gonna argue that if Iraq didn't have Oil we wouldn't have gone in. Their WMD issue was irrelevent...look at N. Korea..proven WMD and nuclear ambition...yet we don't attack...why? Because they really don't pose any direct threat to us. Threaten our Oil supply...and we are coming at you guns blazing. Gas isn't $4 a gallon because of Katrina...it's because of the war.

[Achilles]

Take the Iraq war...people like to say it's not about Oil...of COURSE IT IS. Now to what degree we might argue about but no one is gonna argue that if Iraq didn't have Oil we wouldn't have gone in. Their WMD issue was irrelevent...look at N. Korea..proven WMD and nuclear ambition...yet we don't attack...why? Because they really don't pose any direct threat to us. Threaten our Oil supply...and we are coming at you guns blazing. Gas isn't $4 a gallon because of Katrina...it's because of the war.


Now that part, I agree with. However, seeing that the government LOVES to make exuses for starting wars, wouldn't it make perfect sense to go to war if we were attacked?

This country has learned that we do not attack unless we're attacked first. Take Pearl Harbor. It was the final push into WWII.

In almost every speech, Bush has hid behind 9/11. Its his justification for anything he does in teh middle-east. Its possible that the government gave him that reusable scapegoat.

[Achilles]

Honestly, the theorists have put soo many holes in the offical story that it looks like it was shot with a minigun.
Hahahaha! Thanks for the laugh, I needed that! I've seen very few "patches" so far. Then you haven't been following the other thread on this subject, where I've soundly stomped this ridiculous theory into the dirt.


Im glad to entertain you.

Heres some things you missed, I'll point 'em out to you.
I've seen these points raised time after time in DF.

Just before the collapse, there was a white smoke emerging from the base of the structure. What was it? Why was it there? Did it have anything to do with the collapse?

If the Twin towers fell at freefall speed, then the collapse was obviously not a pancaking. So if it wasn't a pancaking, where was the structure weakened?

There are reports of mutiple explosions on 9/11 that were heard coming from the base of the building. So why were explosions coming from the base if the only explosions came from the upper stories of the twin towers where the planes hit? you tell me.

If you watch the footage of the Twin Towers falling, you can make out the "squibs" as controlled demolition workers call them. These squibs stay ahead of the collapse wave. I wonder why?

From a camera mounted on a tripod on top of a building close to the WTC, footage was taken of the towers falling. The tripod shakes just before the collapse. So what caused the shake? Why was it just before the collapse? Where did it come from?

Larry Silverstein explained in an interview that he gave the order to destroy WTC7 using controlled demolition. How would it take to put all those charges in place to collapse the building? Had to have been proir 9/11 cuz i dont think workers could concentrate with the freakin towers crashing down.

I hope it would take too much out of your time to "stomp this rediculous theory." I would like to see an explanation for this.
I'll bring more points to you on the other aspects of 9/11 if you manage to debunk this


Seeing as how I gave Mayberry enough time to answer these questions.
I pose these questions to you Labrocca. Can you answer them?

[Drocket]

It stands to reason that if you make up a few theories that are false then the rest of the theories are baseless as well.

You know you just debunked the anti-global warming crowd here, right? :P

[PatrickHenry]

The 9/11 theorists just won't shut up..that's the problem. Even at sites like youtube they have gone to great lengths to get their propaganda out.
If it was an inside job, it is the most heinous act in the history of our benighted nation. Those who are conviced, by the evidence, of what a racket 9/11 is...will never "shut up."

And bubba, you are mistaken as to the nature of propaganda. It comes from official sources. Always.

There is an agenda by these nutjobs to join forums, invade blogs, and repeat the same old nonsense to everyone that listens in the hope they convince people that a conspiracy did occur.
Nutjobs, hmm? I think that everyone on the planet agrees that there was a conspiracy. The issue is, who were the conspirators? IMHO, the nutjobs are those who have seen where the aftermath of 9/11 has led us and still can't add it all up.

And do I take it that you don't appreciate people joining your forum? People whose opinions differ from yours?

[jafar00]

And do I take it that you don't appreciate people joining your forum? People whose opinions differ from yours?


Actually, Labrocca runs one of the most fair and open forums out there. I'm surprised I'm still here since I've been banned from a lot of other forums for my opposing views. Labrocca is entitled to have an opposing position too. In fact I vehemently disagree with him on a daily basis, yet that doesn't detract from the respect I have for him nor his respect for me and my view.

People feel very strong emotions surrounding 9/11 and not just Americans as the whole thing affected almost everyone else in the world. It's important to let our views about it come across without letting our emotions cloud our thinking.

BTW, I'm with you. 9/11 was an inside job. :P

[Labrocca]

I think that everyone on the planet agrees that there was a conspiracy.

You can have your opinion about it all but don't speak for me or others. I rarely meet people that actually feel it was an inside job. And those that do...are pretty much basing their opinion on youtube videos made by college kids that weren't there.

And do I take it that you don't appreciate people joining your forum? People whose opinions differ from yours?

No..I am incredibly appreciative. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I dislike you...just what you have to say. Isn't that the point of a debate site anyways? If you read a lot of what I say about the mission of DF it's basically simple "civil debate". You can only have debate with people you disagree with btw.

In case I haven't officially welcomed you...WELCOME. And I am SURE we will find some common ground but 9/11 obviously isn't it.

[PatrickHenry]

I think that everyone on the planet agrees that there was a conspiracy.

You can have your opinion about it all but don't speak for me or others. I rarely meet people that actually feel it was an inside job. And those that do...are pretty much basing their opinion on youtube videos made by college kids that weren't there.Heh. I was referring to the Official Story that Osama bin Ladin and 19 hijackers conspired to attack America. Either you believe in that conspiracy or you believe in the one we are examining here, or you don't know what to believe.

And do I take it that you don't appreciate people joining your forum? People whose opinions differ from yours?

No..I am incredibly appreciative. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I dislike you...just what you have to say. Isn't that the point of a debate site anyways? If you read a lot of what I say about the mission of DF it's basically simple "civil debate". You can only have debate with people you disagree with btw.

In case I haven't officially welcomed you...WELCOME. And I am SURE we will find some common ground but 9/11 obviously isn't it.
Thanks Labrocca. I am really a nice guy, with some views that are conservative, others that seem outrageously anti to those immersed in American media propaganda, and still others that may seem just plain offbeat. Heh. I hope you like me. I didn't get kicked out of my last forum and logged over 10,000 posts there in a bit over three years. I just found that the atmosphere was changing and began to get a bit stifling.

When I asked if you didn't appreciate people joining up, it was in reference to your rant about the "nutjobs" who are going around joining forums and talking about 9/11. Heh.

Millions worldwide are convinced that there was an inside job. I don't know what the percentages are in America, but I'd wager that there are millions here who also agree that the Official Story doesn't add up.

[Mayberry]

Seeing as how I gave Mayberry enough time to answer these questions.
Arguing with a fool is a waste of time. There are myriad explanations for any and all of your so called "evidence". This could never be covered up in this country. No way, no how.

[CheesyMuslim]

SSorry bout that,

1. But the main reason why these "Nutjobs" can't see what happened on 911, goes thus.
2. Yes, its ( I ), *The Great CWN* who always figures out just what happened.
3. Here's what happened.
4. One of Islams branches did 911, PERIOD!
5. They are all working together to take over the world.
6. Catch a read on it, its center is Mecca.
7. Wahhabism is the focal point of why *The Twin Towers*, are no more.
8. Come again.


Regards,
SirJAmesofTexas

[PatrickHenry]

Seeing as how I gave Mayberry enough time to answer these questions.
Arguing with a fool is a waste of time. There are myriad explanations for any and all of your so called "evidence". This could never be covered up in this country. No way, no how.
When did you become aware of the stealth aircraft programs? AFTER they were complete, I'll bet...

Are you aware that the Manhattan Project was one of the biggest secrets of WW2? Even though over 130,000 people worked on it? Are you aware of the strategy of compartmentalization?

Name and locate the secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe. See, there are a few things that really are kept secret.

In fact, that is one of my primary complaints against BushCo. They are the most secretive Administration on record...

And I hope you don't use the word "fool" to describe those whose opinions are different from yours, but whose questions you can't answer.

[Achilles]

Seeing as how I gave Mayberry enough time to answer these questions.
Arguing with a fool is a waste of time. There are myriad explanations for any and all of your so called "evidence". This could never be covered up in this country. No way, no how.


I loooooove this.

"There are explanations. I know there are. I just can't find them! So I'll just call you a fool to divert all attention on me to you by calling you a fool."

Either you bring me the evidence, Mayberry, or stop posting crap like this.

[jafar00]

SSorry bout that,

1. But the main reason why these "Nutjobs" can't see what happened on 911, goes thus.
2. Yes, its ( I ), *The Great CWN* who always figures out just what happened.
3. Here's what happened.
4. One of Islams branches did 911, PERIOD!
5. They are all working together to take over the world.
6. Catch a read on it, its center is Mecca.
7. Wahhabism is the focal point of why *The Twin Towers*, are no more.
8. Come again.


Do you need a tinfoil hat? Can I send one via PM? :D

[Mayberry]

Either you bring me the evidence, Mayberry, or stop posting crap like this.
I have brought evidence, you've just chosen to ignore it.

[Drocket]

Name and locate the secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe. See, there are a few things that really are kept secret.

Stare Kjekuty, Poland. Link (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/ssi/full_report_marty_060807.pdf)

[Labrocca]

Are you aware that the Manhattan Project was one of the biggest secrets of WW2? Even though over 130,000 people worked on it? Are you aware of the strategy of compartmentalization?


Great point but I have to ask do you think thousands would have kept quiet if the goal was to blow up Americans? Whenever there has been a vast conspiracy there are those willing to "blow the whistle". Why has no insiders stepped forward to offer evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy by our own government. Who are these insiders? Wouldn't you think at least 1 or 2 would have gone to the major media with their stories?

[PatrickHenry]

Great point but I have to ask do you think thousands would have kept quiet if the goal was to blow up Americans? Whenever there has been a vast conspiracy there are those willing to "blow the whistle". Why has no insiders stepped forward to offer evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy by our own government. Who are these insiders? Wouldn't you think at least 1 or 2 would have gone to the major media with their stories?
You would think so. But I would say that there may be various reasons not to sing.

There may be powerful financial incentives.
There may be deadly threats to a plotter's family.
Those who were most familiar with the plot might be conscienceless sociopaths.
Some of them may be foreigners with expertise and no concern for Americans.
The aftermath has led exactly where a certain cabal wanted to go all along
There are certain whistleblowers who have been officially gagged

Are you familiar with Sibel Edmonds? http://www.justacitizen.com/

[PatrickHenry]

Try this recent video of the lovely Ms. Edmonds
http://hairenik.com/HairenikTV/HA_TV_Clip65.htm

[tony28]

You're suggesting that the conspirators decided to involve a *news organization* in their super-secret plot? Seriously? Why not just phone up CNN and the AP while they're at it? Heh heh heh. Point and match.


far from it. rhetoric like this doesnt address what hes suggesting; that there was an inconsistency in the time of reporting and the actual towers collapsing.

[BoogyMan]

You're suggesting that the conspirators decided to involve a *news organization* in their super-secret plot? Seriously? Why not just phone up CNN and the AP while they're at it? Heh heh heh. Point and match.


far from it. rhetoric like this doesnt address what hes suggesting; that there was an inconsistency in the time of reporting and the actual towers collapsing.


We all know that news outlets are infallible and never make a mistake so WOW what a revelation.

Egads.....

[jafar00]

We all know that news outlets are infallible and never make a mistake so WOW what a revelation.

Egads.....


Coincidence, or prior knowledge, it's still bizarre they could have such a long diatribe about a building falling down as it stands intact behind the reporter's head and 1/2 hour before it actually did collapse.

[BoogyMan]

We all know that news outlets are infallible and never make a mistake so WOW what a revelation.

Egads.....


Coincidence, or prior knowledge, it's still bizarre they could have such a long diatribe about a building falling down as it stands intact behind the reporter's head and 1/2 hour before it actually did collapse.


For all we know Jafar the guy could have been speaking of another building and been given the wrong building number for his commentary. It is much more likely than 9/11 being an inside job.

[jafar00]

We all know that news outlets are infallible and never make a mistake so WOW what a revelation.

Egads.....


Coincidence, or prior knowledge, it's still bizarre they could have such a long diatribe about a building falling down as it stands intact behind the reporter's head and 1/2 hour before it actually did collapse.


For all we know Jafar the guy could have been speaking of another building and been given the wrong building number for his commentary. It is much more likely than 9/11 being an inside job.


Except they weren't talking about building "7". They were talking about the "Salomon Brothers" building, which is building 7.

Why would they be talking about a third building collapse when all everyone knew about at the time was only 2 building collapses.

Perhaps they were told in advance of the next collapse and they mistakenly broadcast a rehearsal of the announcement live? :D

[PatrickHenry]

Perhaps they were told in advance of the next collapse

Bingo...

[December]

WTC7 building reported as collapsed on TV 23 minutes BEFORE it fell. Building is in the video while interview is taking place.

VIDEO -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88_tYTFUA2s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GEAnn3uN30

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-wtc7-lg.jpg


How interesting.... This video was removed! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88_tYTFUA2s

Here's another one -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM41ZlngNuc

[Pookie]

Newscasts can be faked, too. Did anyone contact the BBC and ask for the "site on" film/video? Was this thoroughly researched by the BBC and other networks? If so, who did the research and where did the film come from?
That way, we will see the truth.
Purrs,
Pookie

[December]

Newscasts can be faked, too. Did anyone contact the BBC and ask for the "site on" film/video?
Pookie

This is real report....