Conspiracy Theories

[peepinmofo]

Assuming it is a big conspiracy, can somebody explan why WTC#7 was also destroyed? Did the people behind the conspiracy think that destroying WTC1 and WTC2 and part of the Pentagon wouldn't be enough to convince people to go along with whatever nefarious plans the conspirators had in mind?

 

I can just imagine Joe Schmoe sitting at home going "Well, WTC1 and WTC2 getting destroyed were bad, but now that they also took out WTC7, I am REALLY mad."

 

http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-silverst...lding-7-on-911/

Preface from Alex Jones: To truly grasp the magnitude of this story, you really have to read the entire article. Immediately after the “pull it” controversy, debunkers claimed there was no plan to conduct a controlled demolition of the building. Now the fact that officials were considering blowing up the building is established, Silverstein’s consistent denial that this took place is a huge smoking gun. How did Silverstein expect to demolish the building safely when such a process takes weeks or even months to properly set up, even without the additional chaos surrounding WTC 7 on 9/11? How could explosives have been correctly placed on such short notice inside a burning building that had already been evacuated – unless the explosives were already in place? This new revelation is astounding and it needs to be investigated immediately. A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.

Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building’s collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.

“A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy,” writes Shapiro.

However, obviously aware of how it would impact his insurance claim, Larry Silverstein has consistently denied that there was ever a plan to intentionally demolish Building 7.

In June 2005, Silverstein told New York Post journalist Sam Smith that his infamous “pull it” comment, which has been cited as proof that Silverstein planned to take down the building with explosives, “meant something else”.

In January 2006, Silverstein’s spokesperson Dara McQuillan told the U.S. State Department that the “pull it” comment meant to withdraw firefighters from the building (despite the fact that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7 as we shall later cover). There was no mention whatsoever of any plan to demolish the building before it fell.

Shapiro’s faux pas has unwittingly let the cat out of the bag on the fact that Silverstein was aggressively pushing for the building to be intentionally demolished, a claim that he has always vociferously denied, presumably to safeguard against putting in doubt the massive insurance payout he received on the basis that the collapse was accidental.

For over five years since the infamous PBS documentary was aired in which Silverstein states that the decision was made to “pull” the building, a construction term for controlled demolition, debunkers have attempted to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics in fudging the meaning behind the WTC leaseholder’s comments.

“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse,” said Silverstein.

Debunkers attempted to claim that Silverstein meant to “pull” the firefighters from the building due to the danger the structure was in, and this explanation was also later claimed by Silverstein’s spokesman, however, both the FEMA report, the New York Times and even Popular Mechanics reported that there were no firefighting actions taken inside WTC 7.

 

Another clip from the same documentary clearly illustrates that the term “pull” is industry jargon for a controlled demolition.

 

“While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was,” writes Shapiro in his Fox News hit piece.

Shapiro’s contention that the 47-story building simply collapsed into its own footprint within seven seconds without making a sound, a feat only ever witnessed in world history on 9/11 alone, is contradicted by numerous other first-hand eyewitnesses.

Contradicting Shapiro’s claim that the collapse of the building was quiet, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer stated that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from its collapse.

“I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself… Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the SHAM WOW!’s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it… Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying… Nothing to account for what we saw… I am shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest,” said Bartmer.

EMT Indira Singh, a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management, told the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, “After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke – it is entirely possible – I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage.”

The host asked Singh, “Did they actually use the word “brought down” and who was it that was telling you this?,” to which Singh responded, “The fire department. And they did use the words ‘we’re gonna have to bring it down’ and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don’t know.”

Another EMT named Mike who wished to remain anonymous wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be “pulled” and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

“There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows…and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled… they told us,” he stated.

Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.

Mike’s report of a countdown preceding the collapse of WTC 7 was backed up by Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown on a nearby police radio.

In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided.

 

“It’s blowin’ boy.” … “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.” … “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” … “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up…”

Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard ‘crimp’ in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent ’squibs’ of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.

Veteran news anchor Dan Rather shared the view that the building looked like a controlled demolition during news coverage of the event on CBS.

 

Several news agencies, including the BBC and CNN, reported that the building had already collapsed 26 minutes and as much as over an hour before it actually fell.

Footage broadcast 20 minutes before Building 7 fell shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. A Separate BBC broadcast shows reporters discussing the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened.

 

Just about every sentence of Shapiro’s hit piece is contradicted by numerous other eyewitnesses, so his feigned righteous indignation in ranting, “I was there. I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks,” fails to ring true.

However, the most damning aspect of the article is Shapiro’s inadvertent revelation that Larry Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance company pushing for the building to be demolished, which is precisely what happened later in the day, and as innumerable eyewitnesses as well as video footage and physical evidence prove, the collapse of WTC 7 could have been nothing else than a controlled demolition, which would place Silverstein’s $500 million insurance payout in severe jeopardy if ever acknowledged.

Shapiro’s testimony, intended to debunk questions surrounding the official story behind 9/11, has only succeeded in raising more, because it completely contradicts Larry Silverstein’s insistence that he never considered deliberately demolishing WTC 7 with explosives.

[SEC=UGA]

We all know Fox News lies.

[TimC]

I blame Obama, of course.

[Beaumont]

Birther Conspiracy Shot Down for Good

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110427/ap_on_...rth_certificate

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/fi...e-long-form.pdf

 

ETA:

 

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Trump said, "I have accomplished something nobody else has accomplished."

 

"I want to look at it, but i hope it’s true," he added. "He should have done it a long time ago. I am really honored to have played such a big role in hopefully getting rid of this issue."

Edited April 27, 2011 by Beaumont

[peepinmofo]

We all know Fox News all mainstream media lies.

[SEC=UGA]

Birther Conspiracy Shot Down for Good

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110427/ap_on_...rth_certificate

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/fi...e-long-form.pdf

 

ETA:

 

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Trump said, "I have accomplished something nobody else has accomplished."

 

"I want to look at it, but i hope it’s true," he added. "He should have done it a long time ago. I am really honored to have played such a big role in hopefully getting rid of this issue."

 

Why did it take two years to produce it? I'll tell you why, government beauraucracies are inept and work incredibly slowly. That and it took the IT guys a while to figure out how to "back date" a newly made long form birth certificate.

[Savage Beatings]

Why did it take two years to produce it? I'll tell you why, government beauraucracies are inept and work incredibly slowly. That and it took the IT guys a while to figure out how to "back date" a newly made long form birth certificate.

 

 

I always thought that they didn't release it because, well, you just don't get issued a birth certficate when you a born from a jackal.

 

[Beaumont]

Why did it take two years to produce it? I'll tell you why, government beauraucracies are inept and work incredibly slowly. That and it took the IT guys a while to figure out how to "back date" a newly made long form birth certificate.

 

[peepinmofo]

I didnt know he was related to Sadam.

[Ursa Majoris]

Lady.Hawke is going to be really pissed.

[The Irish Doggy]

I believe he said " not the same type" not "there was no inner core at all".

 

comparing those two really is apples to oranges. Plus he is in construction and might have juuuuust a wee bit more background when it comes to stuff like this.

 

The Windsor Tower is a pimp. But I did not know, until this day, that it was SEC all the time.

[gbpfan1231]

I have another question about the WTC7 tower. It collapsed hours after the other two towers right? Assuming it was a controlled demolition why on earth would they wait like 6-7 hours to demolish it? If you were trying to have that tower go down and cover up the demolition it seems like it would make a whle lot of sense to have it come down right along with one of the other two major towers???

[wiegie]

http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-silverst...lding-7-on-911/

So, WTC 7 was destroyed to get insurance money. That begs the question: did the insurance company argue that it shouldn't have to pay for damages since the building's destruction was intentional? If not, why not?

[delusions of grandeur]

I have another question about the WTC7 tower. It collapsed hours after the other two towers right? Assuming it was a controlled demolition why on earth would they wait like 6-7 hours to demolish it? If you were trying to have that tower go down and cover up the demolition it seems like it would make a whle lot of sense to have it come down right along with one of the other two major towers???

If you were going to demolish a building but didn't want it widely reported/disputed, you'd be smart to wait until they got all of the witnesses out of there and the story would be overtaken by the larger story America was fixated on (and this is just one possible reason. They'd have alot more to explain if the building came crashing down before it was even "structurally" damaged by the other towers coming down)...

 

Does anyone remember reports about WTC7 on 9/11 or even afterwards? Because there weren't many mentions of it with everything else going on (towers, pentagon, personal accounts, missing flights, false alarms, terrorism?). It was years before most people even realize it had fallen, and I'd bet you could find plenty who are still unaware it even happened.

[westvirginia]

A quick search of that name brought me here: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/april07...ytim2_32306.php

 

A little blurb from this is as follows:

 

 

That whole article is actually a pretty good read.

 

 

This is the one part that baffles me. This, on it's face, makes no sense. And add in the fact that there's no footage from several cameras which should have seen something... I don't know enough to definitely say there's something going on, but my default position is distrust of the gov't. But what was there to gain - just a war? I know it's big busines, but...

[SEC=UGA]

Let me ask this... If Al Queda really wanted to bring the US down wouldn't they have come out and said, "Hey, we didn't do this... GWB planned this, it's an inside job..." But instead, they claim to have done this.

[delusions of grandeur]

So, WTC 7 was destroyed to get insurance money. That begs the question: did the insurance company argue that it shouldn't have to pay for damages since the building's destruction was intentional? If not, why not?

 

For one thing they'd have to prove it with only visual evidence, because all of the remains from the buildings were removed immediately before an invesitgation could even happen, and of course you'd have to go against the high-ranking agencies whose job it is to corroborate their stories. You'd basically have to call them lying murderers and have the evidence to back it up against Silverstien's million dollar lawyers.

 

Secondly, as we can see from the financial crisis, the billionaires who are responsible are rarely gone after like they should be, unless your like Madoff and clearly piss of the wrong people. I don't think it's a stretch at all that an insurance company would rather settle than try to go after Silverstein, armed with a water-pistol of a conspiracy the public doesn't want to believe... As has been proven in this thread, you can't get the jurors/judge on board with such an unbelievable notion without having 100% indisputable evidence that probably doesn't exist anymore.

Edited April 27, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[bpwallace49]

I have another question about the WTC7 tower. It collapsed hours after the other two towers right? Assuming it was a controlled demolition why on earth would they wait like 6-7 hours to demolish it? If you were trying to have that tower go down and cover up the demolition it seems like it would make a whle lot of sense to have it come down right along with one of the other two major towers???

 

I think it is like the plot in Die Hard 3 when they try to rob the federal gold depository in New York by starting a ruckus elsewhere then secretly doing what was their whole intention and that is some nefarious robbery in WTC 7.

 

Do they store gold bars at WTC 7?

 

I think I may have just cracked this thing wiiiiiiide open.

[SEC=UGA]

For one thing they'd have to prove it with only visual evidence, because all of the remains from the buildings were removed immediately before an invesitgation could even happen, and of course you'd have to go against the high-ranking agencies whose job it is to corroborate their stories. You'd basically have to call them lying murderers and have the evidence to back it up against Silverstien's million dollar lawyers.

 

Secondly, as we can see from the financial crisis, the billionaires who are responsible are rarely gone after like they should be, unless your like Madoff and clearly piss of the wrong people. I don't think it's a stretch at all that an insurance company would rather settle than try to go after Silverstein, armed with a water-pistol of a conspiracy the public doesn't want to believe... As has been proven in this thread, you can't get the jurors/judge on board with such an unbelievable notion without having 100% indisputable evidence that probably doesn't exist anymore.

 

Let me just say this, there was more proof that there were WMD in Iraq.

[peepinmofo]

Let me just say this, there was more proof that there were WMD in Iraq.

And let me just ask you this since you apparently have a construction background. Have you EVER seen a building fall in the manner WTC7 fell due to structural damage? Im talking free fall, from left to right, top to bottom. Remember, this building was not hit by a plane, and if it was "structurally damaged", then why did it fall STRAIGHT DOWN? Again, it didnt fall left, or right, or partially, but 100% of the building fell STRAIGHT DOWN with ZERO RESISTANCE.

 

And from what I recall in regards to Iraq and WMDs, there was no evidence ever given to the public. Just what we were told. With WTC7, we have a perfectly clear video of a building in freefall.

[delusions of grandeur]

And let me just ask you this since you apparently have a construction background. Have you EVER seen a building fall in the manner WTC7 fell due to structural damage? Im talking free fall, from left to right, top to bottom. Remember, this building was not hit by a plane, and if it was "structurally damaged", then why did it fall STRAIGHT DOWN? Again, it didnt fall left, or right, or partially, but 100% of the building fell STRAIGHT DOWN with ZERO RESISTANCE.

 

And from what I recall in regards to Iraq and WMDs, there was no evidence ever given to the public. Just what we were told. With WTC7, we have a perfectly clear video of a building in freefall.

Thank you, was about to ask the same thing. As for undeniable proof, it's like SEC said before, when 50 engineers will give you 50 different analyses, then absent a credible person risking their life and their family's well-being with proof that the goverment was covering up an atrocity that killed thousands (most are simply not willing to take that risk, and some have already claimed to have been surpressed and threatened. Read the article peepin posted a while back. These are people with nothing to gain by speaking out), there is probably no way of proving what really happened that day...

 

I'll stop before I start making unfounded assumptions, but I'm also waiting for someone to explain to me how even weakened steel beams/bolts, which should require temperatures far hotter to give, were able to achieve free-fall speeds and meet no resistance on their way down the path of most resistance (particularly WTC7. It was quite convenient that it fell in a manner that wouldn't structurally damage the surrounding buildings Silverstein may be liable for fixing, no?)...

 

I'm no building expert, but this is the one piece I've never heard a remotely feasible explanation for... No amount of weight or pressure (within reason) should render steel to dust.

Edited April 27, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[SEC=UGA]

Yes, WTC 1 and 2.

[Ursa Majoris]

And let me just ask you this since you apparently have a construction background. Have you EVER seen a building fall in the manner WTC7 fell due to structural damage? Im talking free fall, from left to right, top to bottom. Remember, this building was not hit by a plane, and if it was "structurally damaged", then why did it fall STRAIGHT DOWN? Again, it didnt fall left, or right, or partially, but 100% of the building fell STRAIGHT DOWN with ZERO RESISTANCE.

 

And from what I recall in regards to Iraq and WMDs, there was no evidence ever given to the public. Just what we were told. With WTC7, we have a perfectly clear video of a building in freefall.

You keep hanging your hat on WTC7 but still haven't explained a ton of counter-questions, such as the wreckage immediately on display around the Pentagon, how the air traffic controllers who would have seen the USAF jet / cruise missile were silenced, what really happened to the passengers and crew of the Pentagon flight and on and on.

 

The fact that the building finally gave up the ghost after eight hours of being weakened and collapsed in a particular way is, frankly, completely unconvincing as a linchpin to the biggest and most intricate conspiracy of all time.

[WaterMan]

Let me ask this... If Al Queda really wanted to bring the US down wouldn't they have come out and said, "Hey, we didn't do this... GWB planned this, it's an inside job..." But instead, they claim to have done this.

 

Bin Laden never claimed to do be behind 9/11. Maybe other members of Al Queda(sp?).

 

According to this story the FBI had not, up through June of 2006, linked Bin Laden with 9/11.

 

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Ok, two questions:

 

How can they not have enough evidence?

Why is this not being discussed anywhere?

My first thought was of the video that was heavily brandished by the media where Bin Laden and some colleagues seemed to be gloating about their success. Wasn’t that pretty damning? The article addresses that too.

 

Essentially they point out the fact that the video was released in December of 2001, while the statement saying the FBI had no hard evidence linking them was released in June of 2006. The implication there is that the FBI doesn’t believe the video constitutes hard evidence of Bin Laden’s involvement.

 

http://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-fbi-can...s-this-not-news

[delusions of grandeur]

Yes, WTC 1 and 2.

Wow, thank you for taking the time to give your expert opinions, rather than just mocking us. You've done a great job of putting at ease our paranoid delusional minds. How could I have been so blind?