so i was just wondering down the street and i nominally ascertained that "the twin towers collapsed ""mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense"". "This is my black friend in suit who doesn't have me under duress and i am acting completely under my own free will "mostly due structural failure because the fire was just too intense""
Man in black suit and tie wearing breathing mask and sunglasses walks up to a live reporter from behind and touches him on the back. The reporter, while still talking, turns to see who is behind him. As he does the man in the black suit turns and gestures further behind, although it is not clear what specifically he is pointing at. There is no clear activity and the reporter is not asked to move out of the way of a vehicle or other people. The man in the black suit simply seems to act like he justified in interrupting the live reporter and redirect him to nothing specific.
reporter: "Sir, can we talk to you - what's you role out here right now?"
man in black suit: "Um, I'm just standing by right now. Can't say what role I'm playing right now."
This guy was caught in 2011 during a supposed shooting at lax. Look it up. He's interviewed by a reporter and claims he's a passenger with no I'd so the cops let him go
Yeah... Basically, during the LAX Fake NewsTM Event, he was interviewed. Paraphrasing, he was detained at the airport by cops for around 10 minutes. He had no ID or ticket "or anything" but they could see that he no weapons and no evidence of "doing any of this stuff" so they let him go.
So tell me, if the guy he interviews is an actor, what did the government get out of him saying that it fell due to fire? Why not just have no actors (which would reduce any risk of them getting "caught") and just release a press statement by the fire service or something saying you believe that the fires were ravaging the buildings which is likely what caused the collapse? That would be so much more believable and more news agencies would pick up on it than just some bloke on the street
Also you're surprised that there's a guy in a suit and shades when it's midmorning in autumn in downtown manhattan? Come on. He's wearing a suit to work, he's wearing shades because it's sunny and he's wearing a face mask because they were likely being given out by police/fire/whoever
It took over a year to convene the 9/11 commission and it did not publish it's results for another 21 months after that. There was great resistance to even having a commission in the first place. They did not want to release or create an "official" record or document. The use of planted information in interviews was their way to put those descriptions and vocabulary into the public consciousness without having it tied to an agent or agency.
Also you're surprised that there's a guy in a suit and shades
Didn't say I was surprised. Merely provided a description of the man (actually that description fits at least two of the men in the video). So, I agree 100% that it would be perfectly reasonable to expect man in lower Manhatton to be wearing a suit and tie, sunglasses, and even a breathing mask (the reporters is also wearing a mask, but it's not on his face during the clip but instead hangs around his neck). Now the behavior of the man in the suit as another story. However, to me, his behavior is more interesting than his clothes.
For the record the guy that is standing watching the interview is different to the one that taps him on the back
Seems like the first guy is in shock and is just fascinated by the interview/wants to know what is going to be said/see if he could chime in with his own opinions. There's a lot of people just standing and watching the interview, nobody mentions them because they aren't black or in suits
The second guy I don't know, maybe he was just moving the reporter away from the curb so he doesn't fall over? Maybe he wants to get past? There's tons of reasons he could be doing it, I find it very hard to believe that this one action gives him away as some sort of government plant. I mean how many of these plants would they need throughout the streets to spread these interviews out? Dozens, maybe hundreds. And none of them ever came forward or leaked information about it being a cover up? Seems like an enormous risk to take when you could just get some agency to release a report saying the exact same thing...
For the record the guy that is standing watching the interview is different to the one that taps him on the back
Yeah, no shit.
It's strange that you keep assuming things or trying to tell me things that I did not discuss. Yes, there are two guys in black suits. One is black and isn't wearing glasses or breathing mask, the other isn't black and is wearing sunglasses and a breathing mask.
maybe he was just moving the reporter away from the curb so he doesn't fall over?
That's not what he does.
Maybe he wants to get past?
No. He comes in from behind the reporter, taps the reporter, and gestures backwards over his shoulder. That is not how you "get past" someone.
I mean how many of these plants would they need throughout the streets to spread these interviews out?
I don't know, one or two maybe?
Dozens, maybe hundreds.
Huh?! Based on what? Are you aware of dozens, maybe hundreds of interviews with witnesses who claimed the towers collapse "mostly due to structural failure because the fires were just too intense" and who also refer to "ground zero" within minutes of the collapses?
And none of them ever came forward or leaked information about it being a cover up?
This again. So the proof that it's not a cover-up is that no one came forward? I mean, maybe none of the witness handlers came forward, but we know of "dozens, maybe hundreds" of people who have come forward.
Seems like an enormous risk to take when you could just get some agency to release a report saying the exact same thing...
Actually, that's the greater risk. A statement from an agency will have an agent or agency director tied to it. Someone to interview later for greater detail about the nature of the release, the source of the info in the release, etc.
No. He comes in from behind the reporter, taps the reporter, and gestures backwards over his shoulder. That is not how you "get past" someone.
Maybe it is his way, not everyone does the same thing. Maybe in his state of shock he's acting a bit weird, like most people that are in shock. Neither of us know what he's doing so neither of us can rule anything out, I'm just saying that I find your idea hard to believe
I don't know, one or two maybe?
One or two that just happen to be in the area of the camera and interviewer and just happen to be picked to be interviewed? What if the guy moved to another location before talking to them, would they follow him?
Huh?! Based on what? Are you aware of dozens, maybe hundreds of interviews with witnesses who claimed the towers collapse "mostly due to structural failure because the fires were just too intense" and who also refer to "ground zero" within minutes of the collapses?
Ground zero isn't a term that originated on Sept 11th, it's been used for decades in regards to bombs, earthquakes, disasters etc. Maybe he heard someone else say it, like a TV reporter or someone on the news, or a police/fireman?
This again. So the proof that it's not a cover-up is that no one came forward? I mean, maybe none of the witness handlers came forward, but we know of "dozens, maybe hundreds" of people who have come forward.
Such as who? Who has said they were involved in a 9/11 inside job? I've never seen any of these people before, maybe they've just been hushed on an international stage!
Also it isn't proof that it's a genuine attack, it makes it less likely. I never said it was proof. People are notoriously unreliable at keeping secrets, especially ones of such national importance. You only need one person to be of a guilty conscience and to report it to the news and it would, metaphorically, blow up
Actually, that's the greater risk. A statement from an agency will have an agent or agency director tied to it. Someone to interview later for greater detail about the nature of the release, the source of the info in the release, etc.
Which can all be fabricated to make a realistic story, no? Seems odd to be relying on some "random" bloke on the street to explain the deadliest terrorist attack ever
First time I've seen that video and I've watched a lot on 9/11. Almost funny to hear them talk in such a plastic and controlled way, but then you remember the context. :(
I'm not ashamed, I laugh at the video myself. I agree it's pretty messed up, but damn that guy is ridiculous. It's like he's not even attempting to sound convincing or anything, he's just making sure to squeeze in as much misleading informational content as possible because nobody's even evaluating him.
Haha what a load of bollocks. The world's cameras were fixed on the buildings, why would the government bother telling a foreign government owned news agency what was going to happen? This is such a stupid theory that holds no water when you think about it critically
I have but it makes no sense. If the government were going to bring these buildings down on purpose why would they tell news agencies before hand? Seriously think about it for a minute. They just pull off the country's biggest terrorist event ever, and you've set up the premise, the reasons, you've made it look like the buildings collapsed by fire, everything is going smoothly. Why would you tell a foreign news agency? What benefit do they get from that?
Please answer these questions seriously instead of just dismissing what I'm saying because I'm trying to think about things critically (what all conspiracy theorists should do)
Because it was bigger than the US. It was the CIA. NATO. There were many more foreign powers who helped coordinate the event. In order to get maximum public appeal, the media had to know the story. It was staged and carefully organized by multiple intelligence organizations and made sure every news outlet painted the same story. They didn't want any inconsistencies because if one media source went off the agenda, that would've been it.
I understand your skepticism. It's important to be free thinking. I suggest the 8 hour Kay Griggs interview to get an understanding of how intelligence agencies were run in the 70s and 80s. Imagine what they're doing now. It's a global operation.
Because it was bigger than the US. It was the CIA.
CIA is US lol
NATO
Evidence?
There were many more foreign powers who helped coordinate the event
Evidence?
In order to get maximum public appeal, the media had to know the story. It was staged and carefully organized by multiple intelligence organizations and made sure every news outlet painted the same story.
But they didn't... also, "terrorists destroy world trade centre in New York" isn't exactly the kind of story that doesn't get public appeal.
They didn't want any inconsistencies because if one media source went off the agenda, that would've been it.
So one group of theorists say that it was all planned to be consistent and the other group say that there's too many inconsistencies? Which one is it?
I understand your skepticism. It's important to be free thinking. I suggest the 8 hour Kay Griggs interview to get an understanding of how intelligence agencies were run in the 70s and 80s. Imagine what they're doing now. It's a global operation.
I don't have the Internet to sit and watch an 8 hour interview about something 20-30 years prior to what we're talking about, so I'll pass
The interview is my evidence. You don't have to watch it. They had to make sure no media personnel said publically that "wtc 7 is on fire but I doubt it will collapse because it wasn't hit by a plane" or "civilians reported explosions at the scene." They had to make sure their story was straight and they didn't have anyone worth listening to going against their agenda. You may see it as a hindrance, but I think they probably knew the inconsistencies that would result if they didn't tell the media the plan.
It's not that I don't want to its that my wifi costs $10 per gigabyte
The more people you keep adding to the inside job the more likely someone would come forward with a leak. Like not only are we meant to pretend all the government kept it hush hush, but also the CIA, foreign governments, media and foreign media? Come on. Be realistic.
You're using an interview about the 70s and 80s to describe how events went down on 2001. And that's OK to you? Like you think that's a reliable source?
I'm saying that the interview suggests that there is more that we don't know than we could even imagine. And yes, all of those people were in on it and are blackmailed into silence. Do you see how the US treats whistleblowers? You can't just say "be realistic" when the fact is that BBC did in fact report that WTC 7 fell a half hour before it actually did. I don't think anyone watching wtc 7 would have thought that it would collapse. It wasn't even hit by a plane. But somehow all of the supporting steel structures were severed at the exact same time resulting in a freefall? That does not happen. Physically that cannot happen. You can't dismiss the larger conspiracy just because you think it would be too much to cover up. You don't know that. South Korea covered up a cult controlling their president. Think about the facts. Don't base your opinion on an assumption that it was too big to cover up. Look at the facts.
They covered it up and now it's been exposed, because it was too big to be kept secret. How do you not realise this is exactly my point?
Also that's not how building 7 fell, the connections to a central column were weakened by fire which lead to one floor to fall on the one below, cascading downwards. This brought down the central columns with it as some of the connections were still in tact. Then when all the central columns had collapsed there was just a mostly empty shell still standing, which wasn't strong enough to support itself so it collapsed, essentially at free fall. The building didn't fall at free fall, the external shell did. You can even see that happening in the videos of WTC7 collapsing
My theory...poster possibly rouge player involved in the conspiracy that has something to do with the Leo Defense Satellites and Operation Phoenix. The title of the post is '911', and one must take into account the hurricane/bad weather that hit the east coast in the week leading to 9/11. The username possible a play on the Leo Defense Satellites and the Operation.
Remember when Nostradamus was all the rage, and you'd be hard pressed not to stumble on a tv special about him when thumbing through cable channels in the late 90s, early 00s?
Also don't discount that the original plan could have also been 9/01/01 as he predicted first as it literally says out 911. It appears that September 1st was a cloudly, rainy day as well. Just something to think about.
The OCT is absolutely fake.
That's why there is so many fake controlled demolition theory bullshit theories out there. They were created to draw attention from any investigation into the real conspiracy.
Official Conspiracy Theory
In other words, the official narrative being pushed by the goverment. Namely,the idea that a bunch of terrorists decided to attack because they hate America.
I had a thought the other day. What if the World Trade Center buildings being loaded with explosives and the Al Qaeda attacks were two mostly unrelated occurrences?
Back in '93, the original Al Qaeda WTC terrorist drove a bomb into the basement of the WTC with the intent to detonate it and send the WTC tumbling over sideways onto five football fields of NY real estate, killing tens of thousands.
The Discovery Channel special I saw on the bombing said it was almost successful, that it was a minor miscalcuation and some lucky engineering that prevented them from falling.
So what if some small group of city fathers, the mayor and a half dozen unelected mucky mucks, get together and decide on their own that there needs to be a secret system to prevent terrorists from knocking NY buildings into other buildings. Under Giuliani, every WTC building gets wired up with thermite. Hell, maybe he had entire island of Manhattan wired up, like the mad King of the Targaeryns. And somewhere, in a secret NY vault in the Port Authority or the Penthouse of the 4 Seasons, is a box with a secret code that could turn half the island into rubble.
So on 9/11, these city fathers are shitting themselves watching jet fuel burning inside buildings that are wired from top to bottom with explosives. They can't say anything, because they would be implicated in any deaths, because they would lose any insurance claims, and because knowing about the system would potentially hand terrorists the keys to destroying half the city.
So they watched the buildings burn, until they saw that the jet fuel would trigger the detonation system. That's why the first part of any building to collapse was the top part above the collision. If the floors collapsing on each other were enough to create a free fall collapse, the entire building would have come down. At the same time, if someone had intended to make it look like a natural collapse, they would have brought down the entire building. That portion came down through mistake, and the subsequent collapses were triggered once it became inevitable.
No, they're just explosives/weapons that are extremely stable and can't be accidentally triggered by heat or impact. They've been around for decades and are obviously essential in military applications.
No, they're just explosives/weapons that are extremely stable and can't be accidentally triggered by heat or impact. They've been around for decades and are obviously essential in military applications.
It's not that I don't want to its that my wifi costs $10 per gigabyte
The more people you keep adding to the inside job the more likely someone would come forward with a leak. Like not only are we meant to pretend all the government kept it hush hush, but also the CIA, foreign governments, media and foreign media? Come on. Be realistic.
You're using an interview about the 70s and 80s to describe how events went down on 2001. And that's OK to you? Like you think that's a reliable source?
55 comments
18 CzarOfCzarz 2016-12-10
so i was just wondering down the street and i nominally ascertained that "the twin towers collapsed ""mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense"". "This is my black friend in suit who doesn't have me under duress and i am acting completely under my own free will "mostly due structural failure because the fire was just too intense""
14 [deleted] 2016-12-10
"Sir, what is your role."
"I'm just standing by. I can't reveal my role."
RealNewsTM
for u/Tinie_Snipah
Man in black suit and tie wearing breathing mask and sunglasses walks up to a live reporter from behind and touches him on the back. The reporter, while still talking, turns to see who is behind him. As he does the man in the black suit turns and gestures further behind, although it is not clear what specifically he is pointing at. There is no clear activity and the reporter is not asked to move out of the way of a vehicle or other people. The man in the black suit simply seems to act like he justified in interrupting the live reporter and redirect him to nothing specific.
reporter: "Sir, can we talk to you - what's you role out here right now?"
man in black suit: "Um, I'm just standing by right now. Can't say what role I'm playing right now."
3 Tinie_Snipah 2016-12-10
He doesn't say that, he says "can't say what role I'm playing now"
Which could just be his way of responding to the guy asking him "what's your role out here?"
There's a difference to using the words the interviewer uses and what you posted
2 CzarOfCzarz 2016-12-10
https://www.np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5hhq2e/urgent_missing_1_911_fake_newser_last_seen/
4 [deleted] 2016-12-10
FYI, it's not "www.np.reddit"
Use "np.reddit" to replace "www.reddit". "www.np.reddit" will redirect to a google security/phishing warning.
1 bignuke87 2016-12-10
This guy was caught in 2011 during a supposed shooting at lax. Look it up. He's interviewed by a reporter and claims he's a passenger with no I'd so the cops let him go
1 [deleted] 2016-12-10
Yeah... Basically, during the LAX Fake NewsTM Event, he was interviewed. Paraphrasing, he was detained at the airport by cops for around 10 minutes. He had no ID or ticket "or anything" but they could see that he no weapons and no evidence of "doing any of this stuff" so they let him go.
It's not the same guy, but this video shows both clips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzog9yTRVNQ
EDIT: Here is another video that differentiates the two interviewees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A1S-q2TthM
1 Tinie_Snipah 2016-12-10
So tell me, if the guy he interviews is an actor, what did the government get out of him saying that it fell due to fire? Why not just have no actors (which would reduce any risk of them getting "caught") and just release a press statement by the fire service or something saying you believe that the fires were ravaging the buildings which is likely what caused the collapse? That would be so much more believable and more news agencies would pick up on it than just some bloke on the street
Also you're surprised that there's a guy in a suit and shades when it's midmorning in autumn in downtown manhattan? Come on. He's wearing a suit to work, he's wearing shades because it's sunny and he's wearing a face mask because they were likely being given out by police/fire/whoever
1 [deleted] 2016-12-10
It took over a year to convene the 9/11 commission and it did not publish it's results for another 21 months after that. There was great resistance to even having a commission in the first place. They did not want to release or create an "official" record or document. The use of planted information in interviews was their way to put those descriptions and vocabulary into the public consciousness without having it tied to an agent or agency.
Didn't say I was surprised. Merely provided a description of the man (actually that description fits at least two of the men in the video). So, I agree 100% that it would be perfectly reasonable to expect man in lower Manhatton to be wearing a suit and tie, sunglasses, and even a breathing mask (the reporters is also wearing a mask, but it's not on his face during the clip but instead hangs around his neck). Now the behavior of the man in the suit as another story. However, to me, his behavior is more interesting than his clothes.
1 Tinie_Snipah 2016-12-10
For the record the guy that is standing watching the interview is different to the one that taps him on the back
Seems like the first guy is in shock and is just fascinated by the interview/wants to know what is going to be said/see if he could chime in with his own opinions. There's a lot of people just standing and watching the interview, nobody mentions them because they aren't black or in suits
The second guy I don't know, maybe he was just moving the reporter away from the curb so he doesn't fall over? Maybe he wants to get past? There's tons of reasons he could be doing it, I find it very hard to believe that this one action gives him away as some sort of government plant. I mean how many of these plants would they need throughout the streets to spread these interviews out? Dozens, maybe hundreds. And none of them ever came forward or leaked information about it being a cover up? Seems like an enormous risk to take when you could just get some agency to release a report saying the exact same thing...
1 [deleted] 2016-12-10
Yeah, no shit.
It's strange that you keep assuming things or trying to tell me things that I did not discuss. Yes, there are two guys in black suits. One is black and isn't wearing glasses or breathing mask, the other isn't black and is wearing sunglasses and a breathing mask.
That's not what he does.
No. He comes in from behind the reporter, taps the reporter, and gestures backwards over his shoulder. That is not how you "get past" someone.
I don't know, one or two maybe?
Huh?! Based on what? Are you aware of dozens, maybe hundreds of interviews with witnesses who claimed the towers collapse "mostly due to structural failure because the fires were just too intense" and who also refer to "ground zero" within minutes of the collapses?
This again. So the proof that it's not a cover-up is that no one came forward? I mean, maybe none of the witness handlers came forward, but we know of "dozens, maybe hundreds" of people who have come forward.
Actually, that's the greater risk. A statement from an agency will have an agent or agency director tied to it. Someone to interview later for greater detail about the nature of the release, the source of the info in the release, etc.
1 Tinie_Snipah 2016-12-10
Proof?
Maybe it is his way, not everyone does the same thing. Maybe in his state of shock he's acting a bit weird, like most people that are in shock. Neither of us know what he's doing so neither of us can rule anything out, I'm just saying that I find your idea hard to believe
One or two that just happen to be in the area of the camera and interviewer and just happen to be picked to be interviewed? What if the guy moved to another location before talking to them, would they follow him?
Ground zero isn't a term that originated on Sept 11th, it's been used for decades in regards to bombs, earthquakes, disasters etc. Maybe he heard someone else say it, like a TV reporter or someone on the news, or a police/fireman?
Such as who? Who has said they were involved in a 9/11 inside job? I've never seen any of these people before, maybe they've just been hushed on an international stage!
Also it isn't proof that it's a genuine attack, it makes it less likely. I never said it was proof. People are notoriously unreliable at keeping secrets, especially ones of such national importance. You only need one person to be of a guilty conscience and to report it to the news and it would, metaphorically, blow up
Which can all be fabricated to make a realistic story, no? Seems odd to be relying on some "random" bloke on the street to explain the deadliest terrorist attack ever
1 [deleted] 2016-12-10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULGaOaln6Ao&t=4
1 Tinie_Snipah 2016-12-10
That's your response? No wonder barely anybody believes your ridiculous theories
1 [deleted] 2016-12-10
You're a troll and not worth any more of my time.
1 Tinie_Snipah 2016-12-10
I'm not a troll, I'm trying to have a debate about this conspiracy theory. Isn't that what the subreddit is for? Debates about conspiracies?
3 Autocoprophage 2016-12-10
damn dude, you stole my post. I was thinking exactly the same thing. At the very least I can post the video for whoever hasn't seen its ridiculousness
8 throughawaythedew 2016-12-10
First time I've seen that video and I've watched a lot on 9/11. Almost funny to hear them talk in such a plastic and controlled way, but then you remember the context. :(
But damn, so obvious...
5 Autocoprophage 2016-12-10
I'm not ashamed, I laugh at the video myself. I agree it's pretty messed up, but damn that guy is ridiculous. It's like he's not even attempting to sound convincing or anything, he's just making sure to squeeze in as much misleading informational content as possible because nobody's even evaluating him.
13 clenched__buttocks 2016-12-10
Don't forget the BBC talking about building 7.
3 Laotzeiscool 2016-12-10
The world press got the usual instructions from above. This was just a slip-up and bad coordination. And then they lost connection. How unfortunate.
Another example: https://youtu.be/jH8dejYGa5A
1 perfect_pickles 2016-12-10
many MSM reported in detail about WTC7 collapsing at 10:45am too, it failed to do so.
-4 Tinie_Snipah 2016-12-10
Haha what a load of bollocks. The world's cameras were fixed on the buildings, why would the government bother telling a foreign government owned news agency what was going to happen? This is such a stupid theory that holds no water when you think about it critically
3 snowmandan 2016-12-10
If you look at what actually happened instead of dismissing evidence based on an assumption, maybe you'd have a different opinion.
1 Tinie_Snipah 2016-12-10
I have but it makes no sense. If the government were going to bring these buildings down on purpose why would they tell news agencies before hand? Seriously think about it for a minute. They just pull off the country's biggest terrorist event ever, and you've set up the premise, the reasons, you've made it look like the buildings collapsed by fire, everything is going smoothly. Why would you tell a foreign news agency? What benefit do they get from that?
Please answer these questions seriously instead of just dismissing what I'm saying because I'm trying to think about things critically (what all conspiracy theorists should do)
1 snowmandan 2016-12-10
Because it was bigger than the US. It was the CIA. NATO. There were many more foreign powers who helped coordinate the event. In order to get maximum public appeal, the media had to know the story. It was staged and carefully organized by multiple intelligence organizations and made sure every news outlet painted the same story. They didn't want any inconsistencies because if one media source went off the agenda, that would've been it.
I understand your skepticism. It's important to be free thinking. I suggest the 8 hour Kay Griggs interview to get an understanding of how intelligence agencies were run in the 70s and 80s. Imagine what they're doing now. It's a global operation.
1 Tinie_Snipah 2016-12-10
CIA is US lol
Evidence?
Evidence?
But they didn't... also, "terrorists destroy world trade centre in New York" isn't exactly the kind of story that doesn't get public appeal.
So one group of theorists say that it was all planned to be consistent and the other group say that there's too many inconsistencies? Which one is it?
I don't have the Internet to sit and watch an 8 hour interview about something 20-30 years prior to what we're talking about, so I'll pass
1 snowmandan 2016-12-10
The interview is my evidence. You don't have to watch it. They had to make sure no media personnel said publically that "wtc 7 is on fire but I doubt it will collapse because it wasn't hit by a plane" or "civilians reported explosions at the scene." They had to make sure their story was straight and they didn't have anyone worth listening to going against their agenda. You may see it as a hindrance, but I think they probably knew the inconsistencies that would result if they didn't tell the media the plan.
1 Tinie_Snipah 2016-12-10
It's not that I don't want to its that my wifi costs $10 per gigabyte
The more people you keep adding to the inside job the more likely someone would come forward with a leak. Like not only are we meant to pretend all the government kept it hush hush, but also the CIA, foreign governments, media and foreign media? Come on. Be realistic.
You're using an interview about the 70s and 80s to describe how events went down on 2001. And that's OK to you? Like you think that's a reliable source?
1 snowmandan 2016-12-10
I'm saying that the interview suggests that there is more that we don't know than we could even imagine. And yes, all of those people were in on it and are blackmailed into silence. Do you see how the US treats whistleblowers? You can't just say "be realistic" when the fact is that BBC did in fact report that WTC 7 fell a half hour before it actually did. I don't think anyone watching wtc 7 would have thought that it would collapse. It wasn't even hit by a plane. But somehow all of the supporting steel structures were severed at the exact same time resulting in a freefall? That does not happen. Physically that cannot happen. You can't dismiss the larger conspiracy just because you think it would be too much to cover up. You don't know that. South Korea covered up a cult controlling their president. Think about the facts. Don't base your opinion on an assumption that it was too big to cover up. Look at the facts.
1 Tinie_Snipah 2016-12-10
They covered it up and now it's been exposed, because it was too big to be kept secret. How do you not realise this is exactly my point?
Also that's not how building 7 fell, the connections to a central column were weakened by fire which lead to one floor to fall on the one below, cascading downwards. This brought down the central columns with it as some of the connections were still in tact. Then when all the central columns had collapsed there was just a mostly empty shell still standing, which wasn't strong enough to support itself so it collapsed, essentially at free fall. The building didn't fall at free fall, the external shell did. You can even see that happening in the videos of WTC7 collapsing
6 Little_chicken_hawk 2016-12-10
Holy fuck, it's true. ......and they are all in on it.
10 [deleted] 2016-12-10
Nah, it's all easily explained: 9/11 in a Nutshell (James Corbett)
3 Little_chicken_hawk 2016-12-10
Incredible
3 wolfmannic 2016-12-10
Hahaha thats funny. Thank you, that one made my day!
3 SageeDuzit 2016-12-10
Here's a post created by username Xinoehpeol on 8/30/2001 (Forum).
My theory...poster possibly rouge player involved in the conspiracy that has something to do with the Leo Defense Satellites and Operation Phoenix. The title of the post is '911', and one must take into account the hurricane/bad weather that hit the east coast in the week leading to 9/11. The username possible a play on the Leo Defense Satellites and the Operation.
2 Cripplor 2016-12-10
Remember when Nostradamus was all the rage, and you'd be hard pressed not to stumble on a tv special about him when thumbing through cable channels in the late 90s, early 00s?
2 SageeDuzit 2016-12-10
illmatic or stillmatic?
1 SageeDuzit 2016-12-10
The comment he makes in his thread on 9/04/2001 is most damning.
1 skindoe 2016-12-10
Also don't discount that the original plan could have also been 9/01/01 as he predicted first as it literally says out 911. It appears that September 1st was a cloudly, rainy day as well. Just something to think about.
2 SageeDuzit 2016-12-10
Hurricane hit the east coast that week.
1 ocherthulu 2016-12-10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqnaHDdvh5I
1 photonicphacet 2016-12-10
Hey, Hey, Hey! When we do it, it is Ok.
1 Tinie_Snipah 2016-12-10
But why?
1 Dotlinefever 2016-12-10
The OCT is absolutely fake.
That's why there is so many fake controlled demolition theory bullshit theories out there. They were created to draw attention from any investigation into the real conspiracy.
1 [deleted] 2016-12-10
The what now?
1 Dotlinefever 2016-12-10
Official Conspiracy Theory
In other words, the official narrative being pushed by the goverment. Namely,the idea that a bunch of terrorists decided to attack because they hate America.
2 [deleted] 2016-12-10
Ah, gotcha. Yep!
-2 Thompson_S_Sweetback 2016-12-10
I had a thought the other day. What if the World Trade Center buildings being loaded with explosives and the Al Qaeda attacks were two mostly unrelated occurrences?
Back in '93, the original Al Qaeda WTC terrorist drove a bomb into the basement of the WTC with the intent to detonate it and send the WTC tumbling over sideways onto five football fields of NY real estate, killing tens of thousands.
The Discovery Channel special I saw on the bombing said it was almost successful, that it was a minor miscalcuation and some lucky engineering that prevented them from falling.
So what if some small group of city fathers, the mayor and a half dozen unelected mucky mucks, get together and decide on their own that there needs to be a secret system to prevent terrorists from knocking NY buildings into other buildings. Under Giuliani, every WTC building gets wired up with thermite. Hell, maybe he had entire island of Manhattan wired up, like the mad King of the Targaeryns. And somewhere, in a secret NY vault in the Port Authority or the Penthouse of the 4 Seasons, is a box with a secret code that could turn half the island into rubble.
So on 9/11, these city fathers are shitting themselves watching jet fuel burning inside buildings that are wired from top to bottom with explosives. They can't say anything, because they would be implicated in any deaths, because they would lose any insurance claims, and because knowing about the system would potentially hand terrorists the keys to destroying half the city.
So they watched the buildings burn, until they saw that the jet fuel would trigger the detonation system. That's why the first part of any building to collapse was the top part above the collision. If the floors collapsing on each other were enough to create a free fall collapse, the entire building would have come down. At the same time, if someone had intended to make it look like a natural collapse, they would have brought down the entire building. That portion came down through mistake, and the subsequent collapses were triggered once it became inevitable.
5 [deleted] 2016-12-10
That strains credulity more than the official story. Sorry.
2 cube_radio 2016-12-10
For pity's sake Google "insensitive munitions"
1 Thompson_S_Sweetback 2016-12-10
It says those are used in nuclear weapons. I don't see why they would be available to the Port Authority.
1 cube_radio 2016-12-10
No, they're just explosives/weapons that are extremely stable and can't be accidentally triggered by heat or impact. They've been around for decades and are obviously essential in military applications.
1 Thompson_S_Sweetback 2016-12-10
But would civilians have access to the type that withstand plane crashes?
1 cube_radio 2016-12-10
Also used in mining applications.
1 cube_radio 2016-12-10
No, they're just explosives/weapons that are extremely stable and can't be accidentally triggered by heat or impact. They've been around for decades and are obviously essential in military applications.
1 Tinie_Snipah 2016-12-10
It's not that I don't want to its that my wifi costs $10 per gigabyte
The more people you keep adding to the inside job the more likely someone would come forward with a leak. Like not only are we meant to pretend all the government kept it hush hush, but also the CIA, foreign governments, media and foreign media? Come on. Be realistic.
You're using an interview about the 70s and 80s to describe how events went down on 2001. And that's OK to you? Like you think that's a reliable source?