Anyone who supports the official 9/11 narrative should watch this.

Whether or not you believe that Islamic Jihadists carried out the major part of the 9/11/01 hijackings, this is something that everyone should see. If you don't like the source and completely dismiss it, that's your problem. If you want to skip the introduction and get into the substance and reason why I posted this, skip to the 6:30 mark. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4za9OSalz4&feature=plcp

Hmm, will watch. I'll get back to the thread when I'm done with it.

EDIT: I don't need this to know that 9/11 was an inside job, I am positive it was. But I always find these kind of videos worth a watch.

No.

Derp

Just to put it out there, if 9/11 was an inside job then THOUSANDS of people would have had to been in on it. That's THOUSANDS of people who would either have to be bought off or silenced. Are you telling me not a single one of them felt bad about staging the worst terrorist attack in US history and came forward?ad1x2

Not true. There wouldn't need to be more than a few people aware of the scope of the plan. The rest would just take orders.

Oh look it's the same old sh*t we've been shown the last 11 years. I'm so surprised that this was posted. Alex Jones needs to learn to pick and choose what he thinks is a conspiracy. It's more self-contradictory than the worst fan-fiction at this point. Ace6301

If you can come up with an intelligent, reasonable explanation for how all these things (and the other hundreds of issues) fit into the official story, feel free to share. Larry Silverstein said on TV that they pulled Building 7 intentionally. End of discussion.

The problem with stupid people is that they don't realize they're stupid because they're stupid. Thus they never improve themselves.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]Just to put it out there, if 9/11 was an inside job then THOUSANDS of people would have had to been in on it. That's THOUSANDS of people who would either have to be bought off or silenced. Are you telling me not a single one of them felt bad about staging the worst terrorist attack in US history and came forward?hartsickdiscipl

Not true. There wouldn't need to be more than a few people aware of the scope of the plan. The rest would just take orders.

I think this is a case for

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Oh look it's the same old sh*t we've been shown the last 11 years. I'm so surprised that this was posted. Alex Jones needs to learn to pick and choose what he thinks is a conspiracy. It's more self-contradictory than the worst fan-fiction at this point. hartsickdiscipl

If you can come up with an intelligent, reasonable explanation for how all these things (and the other hundreds of issues) fit into the official story, feel free to share. Larry Silverstein said on TV that they pulled Building 7 intentionally. End of discussion.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]Just to put it out there, if 9/11 was an inside job then THOUSANDS of people would have had to been in on it. That's THOUSANDS of people who would either have to be bought off or silenced. Are you telling me not a single one of them felt bad about staging the worst terrorist attack in US history and came forward?ad1x2

Not true. There wouldn't need to be more than a few people aware of the scope of the plan. The rest would just take orders.

People typically take orders and do what they're told to do. Sure, there may have been hundreds or even thousands of people who did things that contributed to the bigger picture on 9/11. That doesn't mean that they knew what they were doing was part of a grand plot.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Oh look it's the same old sh*t we've been shown the last 11 years. I'm so surprised that this was posted. Alex Jones needs to learn to pick and choose what he thinks is a conspiracy. It's more self-contradictory than the worst fan-fiction at this point. champion837

If you can come up with an intelligent, reasonable explanation for how all these things (and the other hundreds of issues) fit into the official story, feel free to share. Larry Silverstein said on TV that they pulled Building 7 intentionally. End of discussion.

That's not what the 9/11 commission's report says.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Oh look it's the same old sh*t we've been shown the last 11 years. I'm so surprised that this was posted. Alex Jones needs to learn to pick and choose what he thinks is a conspiracy. It's more self-contradictory than the worst fan-fiction at this point. hartsickdiscipl

If you can come up with an intelligent, reasonable explanation for how all these things (and the other hundreds of issues) fit into the official story, feel free to share. Larry Silverstein said on TV that they pulled Building 7 intentionally. End of discussion.

Whether or not you believe that Islamic Jihadists carried out the major part of the 9/11/01 hijackings, this is something that everyone should see. If you don't like the source and completely dismiss it, that's your problem. If you want to skip the introduction and get into the substance and reason why I posted this, skip to the 6:30 mark. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4za9OSalz4&feature=plcp

hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Whether or not you believe that Islamic Jihadists carried out the major part of the 9/11/01 hijackings, this is something that everyone should see. If you don't like the source and completely dismiss it, that's your problem. If you want to skip the introduction and get into the substance and reason why I posted this, skip to the 6:30 mark. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4za9OSalz4&feature=plcp

BranKetra

If you can come up with an intelligent, reasonable explanation for how all these things (and the other hundreds of issues) fit into the official story, feel free to share. Larry Silverstein said on TV that they pulled Building 7 intentionally. End of discussion.

hartsickdiscipl

Breakdown of "pulling" WTC7.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Oh look it's the same old sh*t we've been shown the last 11 years. I'm so surprised that this was posted. Alex Jones needs to learn to pick and choose what he thinks is a conspiracy. It's more self-contradictory than the worst fan-fiction at this point. Ace6301

If you can come up with an intelligent, reasonable explanation for how all these things (and the other hundreds of issues) fit into the official story, feel free to share. Larry Silverstein said on TV that they pulled Building 7 intentionally. End of discussion.

"Pull it" is a term more commonly used in building demolition. He didn't say "pull them," (referring to firefighters), he said "pull it." Besides, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to just look at the building fall and know that it was a controlled demolition. I've seen buildings fall due to fire damage too (none that large). If you listen to what Larry Siverstein said in context, it's clear that he meant "demolish it." He wasn't talking about the firefighters getting out when he said that.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Not true. There wouldn't need to be more than a few people aware of the scope of the plan. The rest would just take orders.

hartsickdiscipl

People typically take orders and do what they're told to do. Sure, there may have been hundreds or even thousands of people who did things that contributed to the bigger picture on 9/11. That doesn't mean that they knew what they were doing was part of a grand plot.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ad1x2"] So, who wired the entire WTC complex, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and a few trusted generals? Wiring the building for a controlled demolition isn't something a small crew can do and they would have needed hundreds of people to do it while not being noticed by regular workers.ad1x2

People typically take orders and do what they're told to do. Sure, there may have been hundreds or even thousands of people who did things that contributed to the bigger picture on 9/11. That doesn't mean that they knew what they were doing was part of a grand plot.

I think you overestimate how much thought and observation really goes into most people's lives.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

If you can come up with an intelligent, reasonable explanation for how all these things (and the other hundreds of issues) fit into the official story, feel free to share. Larry Silverstein said on TV that they pulled Building 7 intentionally. End of discussion.

lundy86_4

Breakdown of "pulling" WTC7.

Even if that was what Larry meant, that's only 1 small part of the picture. Why did the BBC report live on air that WTC 7 had collapsed over 20 minutes before it did?

"Pull it" is a term more commonly used in building demolition. He didn't say "pull them," (referring to firefighters), he said "pull it." Besides, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to just look at the building fall and know that it was a controlled demolition. I've seen buildings fall due to fire damage too (none that large). If you listen to what Larry Siverstein said in context, it's clear that he meant "demolish it." He wasn't talking about the firefighters getting out when he said that.

hartsickdiscipl

Even if that was what Larry meant, that's only 1 small part of the picture. Why did the BBC report live on air that WTC 7 had collapsed over 20 minutes before it did?

hartsickdiscipl

I have no idea. I was simply putting forth another side of the argument, which cites appropriate sources. It's well-grounded.

There is also more here.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

People typically take orders and do what they're told to do. Sure, there may have been hundreds or even thousands of people who did things that contributed to the bigger picture on 9/11. That doesn't mean that they knew what they were doing was part of a grand plot.

hartsickdiscipl

I think you overestimate how much thought and observation really goes into most people's lives.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]I'm pretty sure people may have questioned why they are planting demolition explosives in a perfectly functional building while employees of the building are still working there. Also, I'm pretty sure the people who worked there would be wondering why explosives are being packed into the building when they have received no notice of an incoming demolition.ad1x2

I think you overestimate how much thought and observation really goes into most people's lives.

Maybe Watergate was part of the 9/11conspiracy. It makes sense, because with Watergate you can show how hard it would be to cover it up.:P

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Whether or not you believe that Islamic Jihadists carried out the major part of the 9/11/01 hijackings, this is something that everyone should see. If you don't like the source and completely dismiss it, that's your problem. If you want to skip the introduction and get into the substance and reason why I posted this, skip to the 6:30 mark. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4za9OSalz4&feature=plcp

Ace6301

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="BranKetra"]After watching Zeitgeist: The Movie several nights ago, I know about popular conspiracy theories about the subject. The details of 9/11 seem incongruent with the plane crashes.BranKetra

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

If you can come up with an intelligent, reasonable explanation for how all these things (and the other hundreds of issues) fit into the official story, feel free to share. Larry Silverstein said on TV that they pulled Building 7 intentionally. End of discussion.

hartsickdiscipl

Breakdown of "pulling" WTC7.

Even if that was what Larry meant, that's only 1 small part of the picture. Why did the BBC report live on air that WTC 7 had collapsed over 20 minutes before it did?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="BranKetra"]After watching Zeitgeist: The Movie several nights ago, I know about popular conspiracy theories about the subject. The details of 9/11 seem incongruent with the plane crashes.BranKetra

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

"Pull it" is a term more commonly used in building demolition. He didn't say "pull them," (referring to firefighters), he said "pull it." Besides, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to just look at the building fall and know that it was a controlled demolition. I've seen buildings fall due to fire damage too (none that large). If you listen to what Larry Siverstein said in context, it's clear that he meant "demolish it." He wasn't talking about the firefighters getting out when he said that.

Ace6301

Oh BBC is in on it too now. Let's ignore that reporters are people (in this case foreign people) who are just as easily fazed as any normal person. Let's ignore that there was a whole tonne of things said on the news that day that turned out to not be true or speculation. We'll also ignore that they don't say with a definite that the building has fallen it's "we're hearing reports".

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/cdi-pull-it-means-pull-it-down_30.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_it_mean_to_pull_a_building

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

"Pull it" is a term more commonly used in building demolition. He didn't say "pull them," (referring to firefighters), he said "pull it." Besides, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to just look at the building fall and know that it was a controlled demolition. I've seen buildings fall due to fire damage too (none that large). If you listen to what Larry Siverstein said in context, it's clear that he meant "demolish it." He wasn't talking about the firefighters getting out when he said that.

hartsickdiscipl

Oh BBC is in on it too now. Let's ignore that reporters are people (in this case foreign people) who are just as easily fazed as any normal person. Let's ignore that there was a whole tonne of things said on the news that day that turned out to not be true or speculation. We'll also ignore that they don't say with a definite that the building has fallen it's "we're hearing reports".

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/cdi-pull-it-means-pull-it-down_30.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_it_mean_to_pull_a_building

.

Even if that was what Larry meant, that's only 1 small part of the picture. Why did the BBC report live on air that WTC 7 had collapsed over 20 minutes before it did?

hartsickdiscipl

Let's be honest, BBC are never wrong.

Ooh, all this debunked crap from 2007! A blast from the past! [QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

Breakdown of "pulling" WTC7.

PannicAtack

Even if that was what Larry meant, that's only 1 small part of the picture. Why did the BBC report live on air that WTC 7 had collapsed over 20 minutes before it did?

The BBC is hardly a foreign news agency. They may as well be ABC news when it comes to something that big happening in NYC.

They got their facts mixed up? LMFAO! BIG understatement.

WTC 7 was clearly standing right behind the BBC reporter in plain sight! Kind of tough to mess that one up! That is, unless you're reading off a script. It's a lot easier for me to believe that someone mistimed a teleprompter or cue card that talked about something planned than for me to believe that someone would be stupid enough to report that a huge building had collapsed when it was right behind them.

WTC 7 was clearly standing right behind the BBC reporter in plain sight! Kind of tough to mess that one up! That is, unless you're reading off a script. It's a lot easier for me to believe that someone mistimed a teleprompter or cue card that talked about something planned than for me to believe that someone would be stupid enough to report that a huge building had collapsed when it was right behind them.

hartsickdiscipl

You know, I'm willing to bet that there is absolutely nothing you can say that I haven't seen regurgitated a hundred times and debunked just as many.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Even if that was what Larry meant, that's only 1 small part of the picture. Why did the BBC report live on air that WTC 7 had collapsed over 20 minutes before it did?

lundy86_4

Let's be honest, BBC are never wrong.

lol.. now that's funny. I feel bad for Guy. Clearly mistakes can be made.

However, I just don't see that kind of mistake happening when the reporter is standing with a clear line of sight to WTC 7. It's also pretty unlikely that the building would fall on it's own just minutes after it was reported on air. That's a pretty tight timeframe. Almost had to be planned to work out that way, and either the cue card or teleprompter guys screwed-up and let the cat out of the bag.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]WTC 7 was clearly standing right behind the BBC reporter in plain sight! Kind of tough to mess that one up! That is, unless you're reading off a script. It's a lot easier for me to believe that someone mistimed a teleprompter or cue card that talked about something planned than for me to believe that someone would be stupid enough to report that a huge building had collapsed when it was right behind them.

PannicAtack

You know, I'm willing to bet that there is absolutely nothing you can say that I haven't seen regurgitated a hundred times and debunked just as many.

You haven't debunked anything. You're a troll. I do believe that you've swallowed the lies of the official story for so long that you believe they're the truth, and you believe that you've debunked obvious facts.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

"Pull it" is a term more commonly used in building demolition. He didn't say "pull them," (referring to firefighters), he said "pull it." Besides, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to just look at the building fall and know that it was a controlled demolition. I've seen buildings fall due to fire damage too (none that large). If you listen to what Larry Siverstein said in context, it's clear that he meant "demolish it." He wasn't talking about the firefighters getting out when he said that.

hartsickdiscipl

Oh BBC is in on it too now. Let's ignore that reporters are people (in this case foreign people) who are just as easily fazed as any normal person. Let's ignore that there was a whole tonne of things said on the news that day that turned out to not be true or speculation. We'll also ignore that they don't say with a definite that the building has fallen it's "we're hearing reports".

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/cdi-pull-it-means-pull-it-down_30.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_it_mean_to_pull_a_building

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]WTC 7 was clearly standing right behind the BBC reporter in plain sight! Kind of tough to mess that one up! That is, unless you're reading off a script. It's a lot easier for me to believe that someone mistimed a teleprompter or cue card that talked about something planned than for me to believe that someone would be stupid enough to report that a huge building had collapsed when it was right behind them.

hartsickdiscipl

You know, I'm willing to bet that there is absolutely nothing you can say that I haven't seen regurgitated a hundred times and debunked just as many.

You haven't debunked anything. You're a troll. I do believe that you've swallowed the lies of the official story for so long that you believe they're the truth, and you believe that you've debunked obvious facts.

lol.. now that's funny. I feel bad for Guy. Clearly mistakes can be made.

However, I just don't see that kind of mistake happening when the reporter is standing with a clear line of sight to WTC 7. It's also pretty unlikely that the building would fall on it's own just minutes after it was reported on air. That's a pretty tight timeframe. Almost had to be planned to work out that way, and either the cue card or teleprompter guys screwed-up and let the cat out of the bag.

hartsickdiscipl

I think this is a much bigger mistake. It was live on BBC 24, and a full on interview.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Even if that was what Larry meant, that's only 1 small part of the picture. Why did the BBC report live on air that WTC 7 had collapsed over 20 minutes before it did?

hartsickdiscipl

Let's be honest, BBC are never wrong.

lol.. now that's funny. I feel bad for Guy. Clearly mistakes can be made.

However, I just don't see that kind of mistake happening when the reporter is standing with a clear line of sight to WTC 7. It's also pretty unlikely that the building would fall on it's own just minutes after it was reported on air. That's a pretty tight timeframe. Almost had to be planned to work out that way, and either the cue card or teleprompter guys screwed-up and let the cat out of the bag.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] According to conspiracy theorists Planes and fire don't cause damage to buildings.Ace6301

WTC 7 did not have a "building fall on it." It was hit with some debris.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

Let's be honest, BBC are never wrong.

champion837

lol.. now that's funny. I feel bad for Guy. Clearly mistakes can be made.

However, I just don't see that kind of mistake happening when the reporter is standing with a clear line of sight to WTC 7. It's also pretty unlikely that the building would fall on it's own just minutes after it was reported on air. That's a pretty tight timeframe. Almost had to be planned to work out that way, and either the cue card or teleprompter guys screwed-up and let the cat out of the bag.

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

lol.. now that's funny. I feel bad for Guy. Clearly mistakes can be made.

However, I just don't see that kind of mistake happening when the reporter is standing with a clear line of sight to WTC 7. It's also pretty unlikely that the building would fall on it's own just minutes after it was reported on air. That's a pretty tight timeframe. Almost had to be planned to work out that way, and either the cue card or teleprompter guys screwed-up and let the cat out of the bag.

PannicAtack

:lol:

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

lol.. now that's funny. I feel bad for Guy. Clearly mistakes can be made.

However, I just don't see that kind of mistake happening when the reporter is standing with a clear line of sight to WTC 7. It's also pretty unlikely that the building would fall on it's own just minutes after it was reported on air. That's a pretty tight timeframe. Almost had to be planned to work out that way, and either the cue card or teleprompter guys screwed-up and let the cat out of the bag.

PannicAtack

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="BranKetra"] Conspiracy theorists have data which they use to support their arguments the events leading up to the attacks on the World Trade Center. So, their assertions are logical yet remain questionable.hartsickdiscipl

WTC 7 did not have a "building fall on it." It was hit with some debris.