Thread: The lid is OFF 9/11/01!!!

All kidding aside here, I just can't imagine our government having anything to do with 9/11, if this were true more things would have happened to keep us scared and in line however I can see them using this to pass laws that they want.

Pinestraw, right there with ya!

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Originally Posted by MW

Come on guys, do realize what your're suggesting. There is no way our government was directly responsible for 9/11. IMHO, to even suggest such is absolutely crazy and that's all I'm going to say about that.

Nothing personal, PinestrawGuy. You have the right to your opinion.

My suggestion was NOT to say that our government was directly responsible, although that possibility looms a little larger than it did before this came out. My suggestion is only that our government has been engaged in 'some kind of cover-up', hiding the truth, whatever that TRUTH might be.

Can you give a rational explanation for all the things that remain 'un-explained'?

Let me ask you this hypothetical, and then I'll leave this discussion to speculation (because there is only so much more that I can say):

If it happened that it had been determined that toppling of one or both of the towers was likely, and it was determined that the best course of action was the use of mini-nukes (because there was not time to accomplish the demolition by conventional means), would you, as President, make that information public or would you employ plausible deniability so as not to confuse the issue as to which damage was done by the terrorists and which was done by the demolition? Remember that there would be significant outrage at the use of nukes in an urban area, regardless of how low the risk was to the populace, and that the highly litigious nature of this populace would almost certainly bog down the government in lawsuits for years, distracting from the business of getting the actual perpetrators who carried out the attacks. Bear in mind that the knowledge of the demolition could not have been thoroughly contained and that it would almost certainly be used to political advantage by enemies of the administration or even perverted into a concept that the ENTIRE episode, including the planes crashing into the Pentagon and WTC, were part of an administration plot.

Does or would this make sense to you? I am not asking you to agree with the decision, but to understand how and why such a decision may have been made.

Building 7, in actuality, is a side show in the area that is THE WORLD TRADE CENTER complex.

The TOWERS stand or I should say, stood separately within the complex.

The underground construction is another variable, btw.

Unless you folks know how the buildings were constructed, the materials used within the structures, the elevator runs and their materials, and a multitude of other variables........with precise knowledge, no one would have the ability to determine "how" they should or should not have come down.
This is where CREDIBILITY is lost.

The guys who know/knew those buildings inside and out are the ones who've had experience in the construction/design/manufacture/specialty maintanence of these buildings and materials.

Back in the day, although flawed architecture in hindsight, it was space age material and a space age concept.

Mod Edit

BTW i think you are confusing Building 7 with building 3 or 4 with regards to creaking and moaning. I'll check that also.

UB

Originally Posted by UB

Mod Edit

BTW i think you are confusing Building 7 with building 3 or 4 with regards to creaking and moaning. I'll check that also.

UB

No, I am not. The news on Building 7 was all over the place on Sept. 11, which is why I recall it. It was the first time that I thought there was a good chance that a demolitions team may have been surreptitiously inserted. If I remember correctly, the news was that the building had "become unstable" and that they were clearing the area in expectation of a collapse. That news went on for several hours before the building came down.

"In New York, the damage continued into late afternoon, as a third building in the World Trade Center complex, Building 7, collapsed in a plume of flames at about 5:20 p.m. Authorities had been moving people out of the area prior to the collapse, as a fire in the lower part of the 47-floor building had made it unstable." -ABC (09/11/01)

Ghost

The building was "pulled" it did not collapse on its own. The owner was quoted on CNN saying "they are going to pull it." The question was how did the BBC know 20 minutes in advance and why was the original story put out that the building collapsed because of fire ?

UB

Why No One Could Have Predicted The Collapse Of WTC 7
Building was specifically designed to have floors removed without collapsing

Infowars.net | March 1, 2007
Steve Watson

This week has seen a cornucopia of news come pouring forth with regards to what happened to World Trade Center building 7 on September 11th 2001. The catalyst for this has been the discovery that the BBC reported the building had collapsed a full thirty minutes before it actually fell on 9/11.

The BBC, instead of attempting to explain how it could have reported this, has attempted to both evade and cloud the issue. The truth is that no one could have possibly predicted the building would collapse and here's why.

Aside from the fact that previous to 9/11 no steel framed building in history had ever collapsed due to fire damage, Building 7, otherwise known as the Salomon Brothers building, was intentionally designed to allow large portions of floors to be permanently removed without weakening the structural integrity of the building.

In 1989 the New York Times reported on this fact in a story covering the Salomon leasing of the building which had been completed just two years earlier.

Salomon had wanted to build a new structure in order to house its high-technology operations, but due to stock market crash in 1987 it was unable to. The company searched for an existing building that they could use and found one in Larry Silverstein's WTC 7.

The Times reported:

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space...
In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need...

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

The entire article can be read here .

Want to start your own blog or website, get the word out and support Alex Jones? Infowars.net offers high-quality webhosting services at very competitive prices, and most importantly, with infowars.net, privacy is paramount! We don't sell the names of our customers to marketing firms or the government. Click here for more info.



What this amounted to, as the Times pointed out, was that WTC7, specifically designed to be deconstructed and altered, became "a building within a building". An extraordinary adaptable and highly reinforced structure for the modern business age.

This is of course also partially the reason why in 1999 the building was chosen to house Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's $13 million emergency crisis centre on the 27th floor.

Remember that on 9/11 only eight floors of the building were subject to sporadic fires. The official NIST report failed to comprehensively identify how the building could have collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint given the damage that it had sustained.

A follow up report due soon has been forced to take into account a hypothetical situation whereby explosives were used to demolish the building, primarily because every other explanation thus far has failed to explain how it could have come down.

Furthermore, as has been thoroughly documented, building 7 was the furthest away in the WTC complex from the twin towers. Buildings much closer sustained massive amounts of damage from the collapse of the towers and did not come anywhere close to full scale symmetrical collapse.

Given all this information it is quite clear to surmise that if you were going to "predict" the collapse of any building in the WTC complex following the destruction of the towers, building 7 would have most certainly been BOTTOM of the list.

Building 7 now becomes the key to unlocking the 9/11 fraud. What was witnessed on 9/11 was a perfectly symmetrical collapse, with no resistance, of a steel-framed "Building within a building". A perfectly symmetrical collapse of a building that was designed from the ground-up to have entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity.

We have an owner who let slip that the building was " pulled " and we have firefighters on video telling people to get back as the building was going to " blow up ". We have the BBC reporting the collapse before it happened and a follow up desperate attempt to avoid the issue by claiming that it cannot verify anything because it has lost the entirety of its broadcast recordings from 9/11 .

Furthermore, the BBC continues to play dumb by responding to questions other the fiasco by intimating that it is being suggested that they were "in on the conspiracy". Here is the latest response we have received from the BBC regarding the matter after continuing to press them for an explanation:

Hello and thank you for your email in reaction to claims made in an
article published online.

The notion that the BBC has been part of any conspiracy is patently
ludicrous. We reported the situation as accurately as we could, based on
the best information available. We cannot be categorical about the exact
timing of events that day - this is the first time it has been brought
to our attention and it was more than five years ago. If in the chaos
and confusion of that day our correspondent reported that the building
had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been a genuine error.

With regards
BBC World Customer Relations
What is ludicrous is that the BBC expects us to believe it has lost its tapes of the most important event of the 21st century. No one is suggesting BBC is complicit in any conspiracy, and its attempt to frame this issue in that way is a blatant attempt to make the questions that it has not answered go away.

Why did the BBC report the collapse of one the most structurally reinforced buildings in New York before it collapsed and what was their source?

In further developments more BBC video from the day of 9/11 has been unearthed in which a correspondent, within hours of the towers coming down, claims the reason for the collapses is because of their design. He then then provides blatantly false information about the designs to justify the statement, without referring to any sources and negating the fact that the towers had 47 massive central core columns.

Was this another "cock up" on the part of the BBC or were they once again going off scripted information that was being spoon fed to the media? Certainly it is startling that the subsequent official FEMA report, after months of investigation, gave more or less the same explanation as to why the towers fell as is witnessed in this BBC news footage from just hours after the towers fell.

As for the BBC's shockingly arrogant and dismissive "it was more than five years ago comment", as long as the truth continues to be withheld we will continue to target those who are aiding its suppression.


http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11 ... llapse.htm

Originally Posted by UB

Ghost

The building was "pulled" it did not collapse on its own. The owner was quoted on CNN saying "they are going to pull it." The question was how did the BBC know 20 minutes in advance and why was the original story put out that the building collapsed because of fire ?

UB

Well, I have a theory on that, but I'm not going to add to the confusion by airing it here. Let's leave it at that there is good evidence that the building had to come down. In addition to having a large structural failure in the form of a "bulge" that was noted early that morning, it was too close to the twin towers.

If you do a little digging, you will readily find credible rebuttals of the "inside job" theories. Yeah, I know that making this whole thing a giant conspiracy is an increasingly popular pastime, but there is more going on here than anyone knows about, and getting into it only blurs the issue.

Look, the good guys aren't always good (see: ATF/HRT at Mt. Carmel) and the bad guys aren't always bad (see: Bush Administration on 9/11). It's easier to pretend that everything is like a 1950s Western, but that's not life.

Although not meaning to create this cloud of controversy, I remain thankful that I started it in the right category, "Other Topics".

I'm 1 for 1 so far...

Buildings collapse in their own footprints by accident when it takes EXPERTS to do it ON PURPOSE???

2 for 2....

8 hours after the initial 'attacks', MSM mouthpiece BBC announces collapse of Bldg 7, 20 minutes BEFORE it's widely filmed destruction. (demolition)

3 for 3...

Coincidence or not, these things rise to the level of investigative possibilities. Will y'all PLEASE start asking questions?