BBC reports WTC7 collapses half an hour before it actually does

i agree man. I actually posted this topic a couple of days ago. Don't bother with these people.... they are to scared to look at the facts. Good to see theres another person with similar views to me on here/proctorsurf

do you think they would make such a stupid mistake?

i agree man. I actually posted this topic a couple of days ago. Don't bother with these people.... they are to scared to look at the facts. Good to see theres another person with similar views to me on here/proctorsurf

9/11 was set up by the U.S. government. Anyone who uses common sense, and doesn't let the fear of having to accept difficult truths bother them, will see this fact. I'll elaborate further if I have to.my_balls_itch

9/11 was set up by the U.S. government. Anyone who uses common sense, and doesn't let the fear of having to accept difficult truths bother them, will see this fact. I'll elaborate further if I have to.my_balls_itch

There is no 9/11 conspiracy. let's start with scientific proof:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

And secondly, the logic behind it

1. Why destroy WTC 7 hours after the main event?

2. The largest building ever demolished was half the size of the twin towers, and it still took 7 months and 4000 charges. how could you do something twice the size in a crowded office building and have nobody notice?

3. Why has there been no whistle blower who's come out and ruined the whole thing?

4. Why are the conspiracy nerds still alive? Why wouldn't a government that killed thousands of its own people silence them?

[QUOTE="my_balls_itch"]9/11 was set up by the U.S. government. Anyone who uses common sense, and doesn't let the fear of having to accept difficult truths bother them, will see this fact. I'll elaborate further if I have to.Headz_Up

Elaborate further.. why would the government set up 9/11? What do they gain from it?Headz_Up

I don't think they had much to gain, it was more to protect them selves from losing what they already had. Apparently there was incriminating evidence against the Bush administration inside the buildings that were destroyed. What it contained, I don't know, but it seems logical. Destroy the documents, as well as any people who have any information themselves.

WTC tower 7 was admittedly "pulled". That's right, the guy admitted to pulling it. Now, here's where common sense comes into play. If he is saying, "yes, we deliberatly brought down the building", then obviously that means they had it rigged with explosives before-hand. Now you tell me why there would be explosives in the building....was it part of the blueprint when they were constructing the building? --

"Ok Jim, here's where the elevator goes, over there is where the stairwell will be, oh and make sure you install all those explosives before we finish the drywall, just in case we ever need to bring this baby down for whatever reason."

"Sure thing, Bob."

Ok....now if they'll deliberately take down one of the towers, why not some of the others? If they'll demolish one building, they'll demolish a thousand. It's just common sense and logical, progressive thinking that will lead you to the conclusion that the government had their hands all over this tragedy.

And that's just one example. There are numerous others.

[QUOTE="my_balls_itch"]9/11 was set up by the U.S. government. Anyone who uses common sense, and doesn't let the fear of having to accept difficult truths bother them, will see this fact. I'll elaborate further if I have to.Headz_Up

9/11 was caused by terrorist this proves nothinglovemenow

9/11 was set up by the U.S. government. Anyone who uses common sense, and doesn't let the fear of having to accept difficult truths bother them, will see this fact. I'll elaborate further if I have to.my_balls_itch

Anyone who is overly paranoid, believes crackpot theories.:|

[QUOTE="my_balls_itch"]9/11 was set up by the U.S. government. Anyone who uses common sense, and doesn't let the fear of having to accept difficult truths bother them, will see this fact. I'll elaborate further if I have to.MrPenguinKing

Anyone who is overly paranoid, believes crackpot theories.:|

I'm not paranoid. If you can prove that I am, then by all means you're welcome to label me. But you're just attacking me. And I didn't believe in any theories. I thought about this crap on my own. I've never even watched Loose Change.

There is no 9/11 conspiracy. let's start with scientific proof:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

1. Why destroy WTC 7 hours after the main event?

2. The largest building ever demolished was half the size of the twin towers, and it still took 7 months and 4000 charges. how could you do something twice the size in a crowded office building and have nobody notice?

3. Why has there been no whistle blower who's come out and ruined the whole thing?

4. Why are the conspiracy nerds still alive? Why wouldn't a government that killed thousands of its own people silence them?

There is no 9/11 conspiracy. let's start with scientific proof:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

Some folks just don't want to believe such an awful truth. And you know what? I don't blame them. It makes me sick to think about it too, but you can't deny the mounds of evidence pointing right at Bush and his cronies. Some people don't want to delve into it, perhaps fearing what they wil run into, or maybe they do go into it, but are too shaken by the thoughts that enter into their minds after being presented with those pieces of evidence - after which they go into a denial phase, and attack anyone who wants to bring these possibilites to light.

Again, I don't blame them. What happened on 9/11/2001 is one of the most atrocious things to ever happen in this country. If I was of weaker mind, I might not want to believe the government was involved.

About the person who said "pull it".  He was obviously refering to the firemen and what not.  Saying to forget the building because it's too damaged already to put the fires out etc.  So pull it.. pull the operation as in get away from the building, it's a lost cause now.  Thats what he meant by "pull it".  But conspiracy theorists like to twist the words around.

And about the person who said "well why has nobody blown the whistle and come foreward and confessed to the whole thing".  Someone on here responded with "Because they never got the press".  With things like Youtube, and conspiracy theorists like michael moore and whatnot in show business, it woudln't be hard to come foreward if they were involved.

I'm not going to get too in depth with you here.. as I want to go play nwn2 :P but here goes a quicky... [QUOTE="BobElSnob"]

There is no 9/11 conspiracy. let's start with scientific proof:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

d-rtyboy

1. Why destroy WTC 7 hours after the main event?

2. The largest building ever demolished was half the size of the twin towers, and it still took 7 months and 4000 charges. how could you do something twice the size in a crowded office building and have nobody notice?

3. Why has there been no whistle blower who's come out and ruined the whole thing?

4. Why are the conspiracy nerds still alive? Why wouldn't a government that killed thousands of its own people silence them?

There is no 9/11 conspiracy. let's start with scientific proof:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

BobElSnob

Do you have any proof that they're cousins? Or that websites have been removed?

Oh yeah, a small B-25 bomber hit the Empire States Building, B-52's didn't fly until seven years later. 

Here's proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_building

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B52

About the person who said "pull it".  He was obviously refering to the firemen and what not.  Saying to forget the building because it's too damaged already to put the fires out etc.  So pull it.. pull the operation as in get away from the building, it's a lost cause now.  Thats what he meant by "pull it".  But conspiracy theorists like to twist the words around.

And about the person who said "well why has nobody blown the whistle and come foreward and confessed to the whole thing".  Someone on here responded with "Because they never got the press".  With things like Youtube, and conspiracy theorists like michael moore and whatnot in show business, it woudln't be hard to come foreward if they were involved.

Headz_Up

About the person who said "pull it".  He was obviously refering to the firemen and what not.  Saying to forget the building because it's too damaged already to put the fires out etc.  So pull it.. pull the operation as in get away from the building, it's a lost cause now.  Thats what he meant by "pull it".  But conspiracy theorists like to twist the words around.

And about the person who said "well why has nobody blown the whistle and come foreward and confessed to the whole thing".  Someone on here responded with "Because they never got the press".  With things like Youtube, and conspiracy theorists like michael moore and whatnot in show business, it woudln't be hard to come foreward if they were involved.

Headz_Up

[QUOTE="Headz_Up"]

About the person who said "pull it".  He was obviously refering to the firemen and what not.  Saying to forget the building because it's too damaged already to put the fires out etc.  So pull it.. pull the operation as in get away from the building, it's a lost cause now.  Thats what he meant by "pull it".  But conspiracy theorists like to twist the words around.

And about the person who said "well why has nobody blown the whistle and come foreward and confessed to the whole thing".  Someone on here responded with "Because they never got the press".  With things like Youtube, and conspiracy theorists like michael moore and whatnot in show business, it woudln't be hard to come foreward if they were involved.

biocunsumer

[QUOTE="Headz_Up"]

About the person who said "pull it".  He was obviously refering to the firemen and what not.  Saying to forget the building because it's too damaged already to put the fires out etc.  So pull it.. pull the operation as in get away from the building, it's a lost cause now.  Thats what he meant by "pull it".  But conspiracy theorists like to twist the words around.

And about the person who said "well why has nobody blown the whistle and come foreward and confessed to the whole thing".  Someone on here responded with "Because they never got the press".  With things like Youtube, and conspiracy theorists like michael moore and whatnot in show business, it woudln't be hard to come foreward if they were involved.

yoshi-lnex

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Headz_Up"]

About the person who said "pull it".  He was obviously refering to the firemen and what not.  Saying to forget the building because it's too damaged already to put the fires out etc.  So pull it.. pull the operation as in get away from the building, it's a lost cause now.  Thats what he meant by "pull it".  But conspiracy theorists like to twist the words around.

And about the person who said "well why has nobody blown the whistle and come foreward and confessed to the whole thing".  Someone on here responded with "Because they never got the press".  With things like Youtube, and conspiracy theorists like michael moore and whatnot in show business, it woudln't be hard to come foreward if they were involved.

Headz_Up

Your still not addressing the FACT that the lease holder to WTC tower 7 admitted he had the building pulled down....with explosives....which had to be there beforehand.

WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. It supposedly collapsed due to fire damage. But, those buildings were built to wothstand fire, and not even one skyscraper in history has fallen due to fire. On top of that, even if it did fall because of fire, the support beams would still be standing, as they would be made out of steel. The temperature of the fire from debris, cement, and other materials burning would not be hot enough to melt the steel....and if that wasn't enough....why don't you guys ever stop to think how all 3 buildings that fell that day all collapsed so perfectly. If you've ever seen a demolition before, you know exactly how they do it. If you haven't seen one, why don't you search for a video on youtube. (I know you kids love youtube :p)

You tell me now how each building fell to the ground with such rhythmic perfection. Witnesses even reported seeing charges going off in the windows of each floor, in perfect rhythm, as the buildings were collapsing.

That e-mail you posted proves nothing. Anyone can lie and say whatever they want in an e-mail, especially if they have special interests to protect. 

No but it was pure propganda.biocunsumer

Your still not addressing the FACT that the lease holder to WTC tower 7 admitted he had the building pulled down....with explosives....which had to be there beforehand.

WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. It supposedly collapsed due to fire damage. But, those buildings were built to wothstand fire, and not even one skyscraper in history has fallen due to fire. On top of that, even if it did fall because of fire, the support beams would still be standing, as they would be made out of steel. The temperature of the fire from debris, cement, and other materials burning would not be hot enough to melt the steel....and if that wasn't enough....why don't you guys ever stop to think how all 3 buildings that fell that day all collapsed so perfectly. If you've ever seen a demolition before, you know exactly how they do it. If you haven't seen one, why don't you search for a video on youtube. (I know you kids love youtube :p)

You tell me now how each building fell to the ground with such rhythmic perfection. Witnesses even reported seeing charges going off in the windows of each floor, in perfect rhythm, as the buildings were collapsing.

That e-mail you posted proves nothing. Anyone can lie and say whatever they want in an e-mail, especially if they have special interests to protect. 

my_balls_itch

Did you read the links? Steel doesn't need to melt for a collapse, it just needs to lose structural integrity, which a jet fuel fire could easily do.

Also, why would someone smart enough to orchestrate an event that changes history and blame it on someone else openly admit to it being a conspiracy? By your logic they're both evil geniuses and total morons at the exact same time.

Your still not addressing the FACT that the lease holder to WTC tower 7 admitted he had the building pulled down....with explosives....which had to be there beforehand.

WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. It supposedly collapsed due to fire damage. But, those buildings were built to wothstand fire, and not even one skyscraper in history has fallen due to fire. On top of that, even if it did fall because of fire, the support beams would still be standing, as they would be made out of steel. The temperature of the fire from debris, cement, and other materials burning would not be hot enough to melt the steel....and if that wasn't enough....why don't you guys ever stop to think how all 3 buildings that fell that day all collapsed so perfectly. If you've ever seen a demolition before, you know exactly how they do it. If you haven't seen one, why don't you search for a video on youtube. (I know you kids love youtube :p)

You tell me now how each building fell to the ground with such rhythmic perfection. Witnesses even reported seeing charges going off in the windows of each floor, in perfect rhythm, as the buildings were collapsing.

That e-mail you posted proves nothing. Anyone can lie and say whatever they want in an e-mail, especially if they have special interests to protect. 

my_balls_itch

Ironically, the "conspiracy theory" is the one that accuses muslim terrorists of being responsible. Of course the government isn't going to admit that they did it!

Last time I checked, even the people who are closest to the whole ordeal - that would be New Yorkers themselves, and the families of the victims - believe it was an inside job. They would know more about it than even we would, given that ever since 9/11 happened, no one has been affected by it more, thought about it more, or investigated it more, than the people I just mentioned. So if they think they government did it, then....

"Pulling" a building is EXTREMELY common terminology in demolition lingo. Are you sure it's not you guys who are twisting the meaning around? Why would someone say, "pull it", in reference to evacuating firefighters? That makes no sense.  If they are describing the actions they took, they wouldn't use lingo that would appear vague to the public. They would say something very distinct so as not to cause confusion, such as "we evacuated all of our men", or something similar.my_balls_itch

Ironically, the "conspiracy theory" is the one that accuses muslim terrorists of being responsible. Of course the government isn't going to admit that they did it!

Last time I checked, even the people who are closest to the whole ordeal - that would be New Yorkers themselves, and the families of the victims - believe it was an inside job. They would know more about it than even we would, given that ever since 9/11 happened, no one has been affected by it more, thought about it more, or investigated it more, than the people I just mentioned. So if they think they government did it, then....

my_balls_itch

Ugghh....the way I worded it, I should have known it would be taken out of context...let me clear it up. Not ALL New yorkers believe that, no. Of course not, that's impossible. I'm speaking of a poll where the majority of New Yorkers and victims families believed that it was an inside job. Either that or they believe the government didn't do what they were supposed to do - protect their country.

My stance on the subject comes from what investigating I have done on my own, as it is an interesting topic. Of course, this doesn't mean that my stance is immune to changing. If I saw concrete evidence that the government was 100% not involved, and that muslim terrorists were 100% involved, believe me, I would say "OK, screw the inside job theory."

However, from what I have seen, read, heard, etc. - from both sides - I have come to the current, but not infinitely closed, opinion that the Bush administration is involved. And that's merely my take on the subject. We all have different opinions on many things, why can't we all respect one another. We've all been exposed to many different angles on this subject too, which of course will help mold our opinions in different ways. Naturally, there will be 2 sides to anything of this magnitude, and with such confusion surrounding it.

Anyway, I appreciate how you have been civil in this debate up to this point, and not just referring to me as some nutjob or something. I can respect your feelings on this matter, and in fact, I like to hear what the other side has to say, because you never know....you, or someone else might have that golden nugget of information that may enlighten me further in this subject that has captured my attention. That's all. I'm always looking for more information, and I appreciate your input.

I would like to see the poll, And to skip to the end also you and I both know that it's almost assured no amount of info will change someones mind once it's set.biocunsumer

I don't know where to find the poll, but I'm sure it's in the net somewhere. If I remember correctly, I actually saw it on MSNBC or something like that.

As far as not changing minds, nah...I'm not like that. I don't want to be one of those cowards who clings desperately to something that has been proven false, just cause their ego won't let them admit they were wrong. I'm always willing to see new information, and allow it to be applied to my overall opinion. On anything.

First of all, the words PULL IT are very vague.  How are the conspiracy theorists just going to ASSUME he was talking about blowing it up?  Howcome nobody has seen that WHOLE interview?  Howcome he didn't say OUTRIGHT it was a demolition?  Why do people just ASSUME "pull it" was in reference to demolishing it?  It could have been in reference to a million things.  And even the way he worded it, you can tell he was talking about "pulling it" with "it" refereing to the operation. 

His exact words were:  "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they're not sure they're going to be able to contain the fire.  He says, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, I think the smartest thing to do is just pull it.  And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."

Since when do firemen blow up buildings when they can't contain a fire?  It sounds to me like they couldn't contain the fire, and there was terrible loss of life already, so they decided to just pull it.. or abort the operation.  Then all they could do was watch the building collapse from the fire.  Pretty self explanatory, I think.

First of all, the words PULL IT are very vague.  How are the conspiracy theorists just going to ASSUME he was talking about blowing it up?  Howcome nobody has seen that WHOLE interview?  Howcome he didn't say OUTRIGHT it was a demolition?  Why do people just ASSUME "pull it" was in reference to demolishing it?  It could have been in reference to a million things.  And even the way he worded it, you can tell he was talking about "pulling it" with "it" refereing to the operation. 

His exact words were:  "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they're not sure they're going to be able to contain the fire.  He says, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, I think the smartest thing to do is just pull it.  And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."

Since when do firemen blow up buildings when they can't contain a fire?  It sounds to me like they couldn't contain the fire, and there was terrible loss of life already, so they decided to just pull it.. or abort the operation.  Then all they could do was watch the building collapse from the fire.  Pretty self explanatory, I think.

Headz_Up

Yeah, but conspiracy theories use reverse scientific method: arrive at your conclusion, then throw out facts that don't support it, and finally twist or remove from context quotes or declassified statements so that they prove your point.

(By the way, I still haven't got a response for my explation of the cornerstone of all 9/11 conspiracys: that no melted steel means no collapse.) 

-Why destroy WTC at all? Not a rebuttle at all

-How could two buildings collapse due to two planes crashing into it? When they were designed to withstand such an impact. Do you not have faith in our engineers, scientists, etc? Do you think Americans are incompetent? Why is the Empire State Building still standing? It was hit by a B52 bomber! Surely it had an actual bomb or two on board.. while the planes that hit WTC did not. The WTC towers were the first structures outside of the military and the nuclear industries whose design considered the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch1.htm

It's really quite simple. Because people like you don't take them seriously No one but your fellow CT's take you seriously becuase you never use fact.

Just accept that as fact.d-rtyboy

But still, getting back to the topic, you still haven't explained how BBC managed to get their hands on the story of the WTC7 collapse before it actually happened. If the best yall can do is tell me it's "typo" ... lol... yall really need to reconsider what you think to be true about the WTC demolition.d-rtyboy