An interesting article by Prof. Tony Hall below that argues that the official 9/11 story is a scam, and one that is gradually coming undone as more and more facts emerge. Particular emphasis has also been placed on the Youtube video of respected Dutch demolition expert, Danny Jowenko, who later died in "suspicious" circumstances, apparently. Jowenko's argues that WT7 could only have been brought down in a controlled demolition which rips apart the official story. Source
This isn't the conspiracy forum. What does he say - it started at the bottom, not the top? I don't see how that would indicate controlled demo. If a plane hit the bottom of the main towers, as an example, would the collapse also not happen at the bottom?
The "conspiracy" here is to silence patriotic Americans who noticed too much. Love that molten steel pouring out of the South Tower. 2200 degrees.... Jet fuel burns at 600, you're 1400 degrees short if you believe the plane caused that...
Definition of Conspiracy noun, plural conspiracies. 1. the act of conspiring. 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. It is not the person seeking evidence that is the conspiracist. It is the ones involved in the crime. When something big as 9/11 happens. People would be fools to not look into it. Or turn a blind eye simply so they are not labeled as a conspiracist. For evil will always prevail, when good men do nothing.
Nothing here alters the fact that this has it's own sub-sub forum in Conspiracies If this is yet more of the old "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" bushwa, that's been addressed and debunked several times. Jet fuel burns more than hot enough to weaken steel precipitately, and weakening was all that was required.
No, it's not. It's a forum where facts should predominate but sadly where rhetoric and flame-baiting have become the norm. Meanwhile, which "he" are you talking about? Prof. Tony Hall or Danny Jowenko?
So what? I see. You couldn't even be bothered to read the article or watch the clip then. Interesting.
It has been addressed, but never debunked. While jet fuel fires might be able to "weaken" steel, they will never burn hot enough to liquefy it. The problem has nothing to do with weakening the steel. The problem that has never been debunked is the molten steel and other evidence of extremely high temperatures. I also must admit that when I first saw the collapse of wtc7, I too immediately assumed a controlled demolition based on a) the speed of the collapse and b) the symmetry, let alone that it was a steel and concrete building that completely collapsed into its basement. Another fact i have a real tough time with, is how major networks were reporting that wtc7 imploded while it was still standing. Pretty crazy considering that no steel and concrete building had ever collapsed from fire prior to that day.
Your opinions don't really count Ararmer. Like the rest of the military contingent on this forum you're all locked in your myopic group-think where independent thought and rationality are purposely sacrificed so that you can adhere to the official version of events no matter how ridiculous it is or how many uncomfortable facts are raised and remain unanswered. In my experience, it is virtually only the mil guys on this forum that cause and create here the mayhem and engage in flame-baiting and who always jump on any post that threatens the official consensus of what, once, was the Land of the Free - but what today is the Land of the Wilful Blind. I keep wondering if they are under the direction of a guiding mind because I've been around forums since they first began and I've never before experienced such a small clique being quite so focused in one place. Anyway, facts matter not rhetoric: 9/11 Commission Report Question By 100 Professors Another professor, David Ray Griffin has published over 100 glaring omissions and distortions about the 9/11 Commission report available to read HERE.
That was the BBC as I recall. The reporter called it 20 minutes before it happened. [video=youtube;ltP2t9nq9fI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI[/video] How did she know?
The conspiracy sub-forum is where this belongs. He; the guy in the video. Within the first minute or so he says this [at least the subs said it, I didn't have sound up].
Yes, the ONLY possible explanation is that those creating the conspiracy thought they would let this reporter in on the secret, knowing that the more people that knew, the easier it is to keep the conspiracy a secret.
Well, it's just that they've gone to the trouble to give you special treatment, then you purposely ignore it I've seen more than one explanation that explains the whole thing perfectly well. Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?
You're talking nonsense. Just because you want to close your eyes to inconvenient facts doesn't mean the rest of us do. The fact that the subjects that are posted on this forum are wide and varied in any event. And should be. For me you're on a book-burning jihad. A "quickly, put this somewhere else where nobody will see it" attitude. Btw, are you a member of the military faction on this forum, Supaskip? That is to say a serving or former member of the military? I ask because this attitude of suppression and repression is so prevalent amongst them that it seems likely to me.
Oh, I know, say it's a "conspiracy theory" and it'll all go away won't it? Actually no. There she is in all her glory telling the world the tower has come down 20 minutes before it happened. Incredible. How did she the BBC know ahead of time - instead of say, CNN or ABC or any other US news broadcaster? Let me give that question a shot: the insurance company of Larry Silverstein, Swiss Re, is HQ's in London. The board went into emergency session when the WTC was hit. They had a lot of payout at stake. Over $4 billion. And Silverstein spoke to his insurance company about demolishing the building. Silverstein told the Fire Chief "the smartest thing to do is "pull it". All you have to do is watch the Danny Jowenko clip. Simples. CORRECTION: a friend says all the major news outlets knew that the building was coming down before it happened:
Says the man who didn't even read the OP article or Youtube clip I provided before rushing to judgement. Have you ever heard of prejudice? You don't say? Did it include clips from a Disney film? Meanwhile, based on what you've already posted on this thread I can't say I have a high degree of confidence in your opinion --- especially when facts are in play. Do you actually understand the difference between the two btw? It seems to me that you don't. However, if you want to argue facts instead of engaging in lazy rhetoric go for it. I'm happy to debate the facts. Whereas you haven't yet presented a single one.
Done a bit of digging, and the BBC say they got the report from Reuters. "On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen." http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html Of course that does not explain how even the local news story could of reported it early!
I vaguely recall some laughable twaddle but you'd have to check with a search engine. Meanwhile, a friend who has pulled a lot of information together says that most of the major media were aware that the building was going to come down before it happened. He lists BBC, Reuters, CBS, CNN, Fox News and MSNBC reporting in advance of the event that WTC had collapsed or was going to collapse - and regards the failure of the authorities to investigate this foreknowledge as a "smoking gun" in terms of complicity (HERE).
In the below video by NIST you can hear two explosions at the 10 second mark: [video=youtube;u2lp4d1GjzE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2lp4d1GjzE[/video] NIST withheld this video and other evidence indicating a controlled demolition until a legal suit forced them to release it well after the publication of their official report
I'm not talking nonsense. There is a conspiracy sub-forum. This topic does belong there. It will likely get moved. The sub forum is available for everyone to see. Everyone can see it. No I'm not. Your complete response screams tin-hatter. You are looking to discredit me in some way and that I'm suppressing information. If that does it for you, who am I to argue. I'm all for talking about conspiracy - it's good fun if nothing else, but there is nothing new here.
You are suggesting that the government conspired in the WTC attacks and this helps prove it. Yes, I believe that is pretty accurate for "conspiracy theory". Nobody is looking for it to go away; people are just looking for definitive proof and would be more than shocked to break such a scandal. It would be the biggest story in the WORLD and the MEDIA would absolutely love to be reporting that. So they told the newscaster it was going to come down 20 minutes before it was, and she said it had already collapsed. So she misreported the issue. That's the first thing you establish. So if she was told anything, she was told it was going to come down. Now prove to me that she was told it was going to be pulled down, rather than it looked like it was going to collapse on it's own accord. If there's proof, I'd buy it. If there's tenuous links, I don't. Simple.
