The government did 9-11 probably with Mossad.

Saudis seem to be the main co-conspirators, but Mossad clearly knew before it happened

What did the Saudis have to gain by this?

Destabilization of the countries surrounding them, making them easier to invade and making SA a more powerful nation in the region.

This is why I tell my fellow Turks that we shouldn't blame Isis on Mossad or Cia, but on SA.

economic symbiosis

http://www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-the-saudi-split-a-motive-for-911/5347816

IMO Mossad knew and let it happen because they knew that US would go to war for it and Israel would benefit.

Five dancing israelis, the b thing, urban moving systems, dominick suter.

Israel and 5 other countries warned the US about 9-11 before it happened and the US didn't do anything about these intelligence warnings.

What could they possibly do about them? Call up their guys and say "stop the plan"?

Proof?

http://www.newnationalist.net/2017/03/02/world-trade-centers-infamous-91st-floor-israeli-art-student-project/

Check the 9-11 sub. Lots of proof. Don't know where to start.

Dont you think after 15 years, multiple hacks of secret government documents, including CIA documents, that something so big as the government ordering the destruction of the WTC, that something tangible or a smoking gun would have shown up? Dont you think someone inside the government would have leaked it by now?

Loads of leaked CIA and NSA docs show tons of sketchy shit like phone tapping the entire country, yet absolutely nothing about an inside job with regards to 9/11?

Lol, you don't have the slightest clue how wikileaks works, do you?

Do you?

Assange only released the cia programming stuff. 9-11 being in an inside job is common knowledge. There are plenty of smoking guns. For example, the physics people found out that the only way those buildings could have fallen was through explosives. Also, why did the 3rd building fall without a plane hit? There are many serious flaws in the false flag of 9-11.

LMAO what a weak argument. He didn't release it because it's common knowledge? Sure because Clinton's coming recipes needed to be released but documents proving that 911 was an inside job.... Meh not important!

Nope. That's not what I mean.

9-11 exposure will happen this year or next year max. You have to be careful with these things. It can trigger a world war. If you are a regular here, you will see that most of this sub knows about 9-11 being an inside job. You need to research it. There are tons of circumstantial and some pretty damning evidence.

So true. I believe it's far more convenient and reassuring for people to assume there's no way our own government would allow 9/11, or many other conspiracy theories for that matter. I remember Richard Dawkins saying something like "Just because something makes you better, doesn't mean it's true." Yet we are conditioned as children to believe in things without evidence that make us feel better. Plus, TPTB peddle MSM fake news in a way that panders to our adult egos, keeping us informed in bite-sized snippets, pundits acting like we are critically thinking equals to them, knowing we're too lazy to scratch beneath the surface and too naive/stupid to to even comprehend it if we did. And besides, someone would have spoken up by now, right?! I don't mean to be pessimistic, just redpilling is kind of a bummer...

It's also pretty funny to me that people will believe that someone did it for their god but won't believe that someone would do it for money.

Cause you can't get money when you're a suicide bomber after the fact.

But your family can.

I don't know about you, but offering my family money for my death is not something I'm okay with.

That's literally the business of life insurance.

When both parties are voluntarily okay with the death, it's not.

Cause it wasn't suicide bombers that organized 9/11 and got the payday for it ;)

I can feel the whoosh

Same difference

knowing we're too lazy to scratch beneath the surface and too naive/stupid to to even comprehend it if we did

This, in a nutshell, is why I believe the masses will never wake up.

I have had trouble with my family - can't get them to look at the evidence worth. And it comes in entertaining, well-researched and produced free YouTube videos these days - It doesn't even take a shit load of clicks to find out bitches be lying more than a stripper girlfriend with a bad Snowball addiction.

'All you have to do is limit a person's perception of the possible to keep them completely ignorant of reality - completely enslaved. Cheers to freedom, mates!' -David Icke or Someone Like Him

Making you feel better doesn't make something true, facts and evidence do. That's why people don't believe this bullshit. I know you people think you're so much smarter than everyone else but it takes a special kind of stupid to believe this lol

You restated my point, then dismissed the evidence OP brought fourth. I don't think I'm smarter than others, I believe it's easier to lie to someone than to convince them they're being lied to. Believe me, I sometimes long for that blue pill again.

Facts. Evidence. Proof.

Without these no one will believe you, and you don't have them. So no one believes you.

I honestly don't know how much more I can dumb it down for you.

So much hostility and dismissal. Not sure If serious or a shill. Are you disputing OP's post as fake news then? Because he literally just posted a fact, and did not make claims.

I am dismissing all of these bogus 9/11 wackjob theories and anyone who buys into them. 3000 people died because of a terrorist attack against the US and anti-government conspiracists use it as proof of government conspiracy against the American people.

I mean really? A few second tape delay that I still haven't seen any proof for is what you're using? Like that 100% proves every conspiracy? As if every news organization was scheming with US government elites to kill thousands of americans?

You're either that much of a moron, actually mentally handicapped, or schizophrenic to believe that. If you think you aren't any of the above, go say this shit face to face to the people in your life and let them tell you themselves. It'll hurt a little less.

Shit, that's Las Vegas isn't it? Is there any more to this story, like how they could have had that info or what happened?

FOX 5 reported it had collapsed seconds before it actually did.

How many seconds? Part of the roof visibly collapsed something like 10 seconds or more before the rest of the structure did. This is almost never shown in videos, and never shown in videos attempting to prove a conspiracy.

The East Penthouse fell 5 seconds before the rest of the building. It's usually not shown because casual viewers don't have attention spans that long. IMO the way the East Penthouse fell is evidence for demolition.

IMO the way the East Penthouse fell is evidence for demolition.

I've heard it both ways, though I agree that it is not proof of the NIST report.

We are told that the East Penthouse and the area under it was collapsing as a chain-reaction from the east to the west, yet...

1. We see no dust being pushed out of the windows or the open part of the roof. Dust only emanates from the building when the exterior starts moving down.

2. There are only broken windows on the upper 15 floors before the exterior starts moving down.

3. The steel perimeter of the building does not deform significantly.

4. There is no sunlight visible through the windows except for one floor under the East Penthouse.

5. A shockwave can be seen moving from the top, eastern part of the building to the bottom.

Until all of this is explained, it pretty much looks like the East Penthouse fell at a high part of the building, far away from any fire.

I think it's the opposite. It's evidence against demolition. You can watch the way the inside of the building collapses because the windows start breaking.

Then the entire building goes 5 seconds after. Nobody demolishes buildings like that.

Nobody demolishes buildings like that.

No, everyone demolishes buildings like that. You have not seen the video?! Wow.

There is photographic evidence that the building was rocking slightly about 90 seconds before the East Penthouse. If it was a demolition, I take it as a slower, quieter way of dismembering it to prepare for the final event which causes the entire thing to fall down.

But that technology doesn't exist. You are taking something which should be evidence of it not being a demolition, and using it as the opposite. That's the definition of propaganda, man.

Devices to remove structural columns in a precisely times fashion don't exist? Oh boy.

No, devices that gently sway buildings 90 seconds before they fall down don't exist.

If you gradually removed structural components before the final event, the building would sway. In videos of demolitions, you often see explosives going off before the building appears to move at all.

But that isn't how it fell. It also was being used as a building that morning.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who remembers this happening.

I know this won't be popular, but did the firemen know that it was doomed from the progress of the fire and told the press? Who then reported it as a done deal. And the famous line 'pull it' may have meant to evacuate the personnel? That doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.

An unidentified "engineer" told the fire chiefs at 11:30 AM that the building would collapse "in about five or six hours".

I don't buy that as a conspiracy. If it was a conspiracy, whatever steps they took were sufficient. No reason to let possible witnesses live.

I don't buy that as a conspiracy. If it was a conspiracy, whatever steps they took were sufficient. No reason to let possible witnesses live. Also no reason to inform newscasters.

They didn't inform newscasters. All of the foreknowledge traces back to one single guy. He said the building would collapse from the damage to the south facade and the fires (although the first photographic evidence for fires in the building started at 12:10 PM, while the foreknowledge traces back to 11:30 AM). The fire chiefs truly believed the building was in danger of a complete collapse just like the Twin Towers before them, but on little more basis than the eerie prediction of one "engineer" guy.

Someone who couldn't live with the guilt of more dead first responders

An unidentified "engineer" told the fire chiefs at 11:30 AM that the building would collapse "in about five or six hours".

Do you have any evidence - rather, any support - for that claim? It sounds like a hastily made up "we look like lying mass murdering fuck, quick, make something moronic up" and some twit suggests "An unidentified engineer ...."

Here are my sources:

The oral histories of Frank Fellini, Anthony Mancuso, William Melarango, David Moriarty, Patrick Murray, Anthony Salerno all specifically indicate the collapse warning came 4 or more hours before it happened

Journal of 9/11 Studies - Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories by Graeme MacQueen

Also see: 9/11 - Dr Graeme MacQueen - Foreknowledge of Building 7's Collapse

Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html

Chief of Department Peter Hayden consulted with an engineer:

We posed to him the question that considering the structural damage that was obvious to the – to the building on the southwest corner, and the amount of fire damage that was occurring within the building, could we anticipate a collapse and if so, when. He said yes and he gave an approximate time of five to six hours, which was pretty much right on the money because the building collapsed about 5 o’clock that afternoon.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150802154917/http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a3c33b98-9cbf-4b82-b557-6088e207c8f6/1/doc/11-4403_complete_opn.pdf

Another similar quote by Chief Peter Hayden on the BBC Conspiracy Files program:

"We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building. And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, 'if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?' And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZbMfTtHkYM&t=19m20s

Firefighter Michael Currid:

"Someone from the Office of Emergency Management told us that this building was in serious danger of collapse. The consensus was that it was basically a lost cause and we should no lose anyone else trying to save it. Rich, a few other people and I went inside to the stairwells and started yelling up "Drop everything and get out!" It didn't collapse until much later in the afternoon, but we felt it was better to get everybody out."

https://books.google.com/books?id=pV1AqPxMnqUC&pg=PT172&lpg=PT172&dq=september+11+oral+history+%22The+consensus+was+that+it+was+basically+a+lost+cause+and+we+should+not+lose+anyone+else+trying+to+save+it%22&source=bl&ots=EHgxa9jt7h&sig=HEjg_4bvTDNk3GEaUWz6CTmBtVg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0-NOetKrLAhXHlYMKHXMYASUQ6AEILTAD#v=onepage&q=september%2011%20oral%20history%20%22The%20consensus%20was%20that%20it%20was%20basically%20a%20lost%20cause%20and%20we%20should%20not%20lose%20anyone%20else%20trying%20to%20save%20it%22&f=false

Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building

and

we anticipate a collapse and [he] was pretty much right on the money

and

Someone ... told us that this building was in serious danger of collapse.

Well, you're right. People will believe anything. A public made up of such people does not deserve any role in decision making.

There was absolutely no basis at 11:30 AM to say the building would collapse. Studies in hindsight conclude that the damage to the south perimeter could have have contributed to it's collapse.

There was absolutely no basis at 11:30 AM to say the building would collapse.

Yeah, exactly.

However, "collapse" is incorrect. A "collapse" would involve some parts breaking and the building bucking into an unusable state.

In reality, WTC7 was completely ahnnilated with effectively every structural part being broken into tiny pieces, with the resultant rubble forming an impossibly small pile.

No way a fire would cause a building to collapse the way it did. Explosives placed in critical locations in the buildings structure is the only way it would collapse the way it did

That's exactly what happened. The firefighters expected it to collapse.

• https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

• https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

A local TV station got the story wrong and Reuters sent the story over their wire service. From Mike Rudin at the BBC:

It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:

"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."

The same post which says that BBC, one of the largest media houses, casually misplaces the 9/11 files; the biggest thing to happen in the US in the modern context?

The mystery of the missing tapes didn't last that long. One very experienced film librarian kindly agreed to have another look for us one night. There are more than a quarter of a million tapes just in the Fast Store basement at Television Centre. The next morning I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They'd just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all.

So?

That's a classic conspiracy theorist technique. You can't destroy evidence, but it's easy and untraceable to misfile something. You can even pass a polygraph saying that you filed it away. Even if you get caught it's a simple oopsy.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you accusing the BBC of doing something?

Nope. Just saying when you want something to disappear it's pretty simple. No matter who you are.

BBC also claimed they lost it the post before this; 1-2 years previous than this.

Also the point still stands; you don't misplace shit if you are BBC. Much less 9/11.

Also the point still stands; you don't misplace shit if you are BBC. Much less 9/11.

Sure, the BBC and other large organizations lose stuff frequently, even important stuff.

But I don't even understand who at the BBC would have motive to hide anything.

You dont need to be from BBC to hide something...

Yeah. That makes a lot more sense than multiple media reporters unnecessarily being pulled into a conspiracy.

Like just imagine the conversation -

CIA or whatever - "we're gonna take out building 7"

media - "ok why are you telling me this"

CIA - "so you can say it on tv"

media - "aren't we going to know when it happens anyway"

CIA - "yeah but say it early tho lol"

media - "ok"

Because we don't have all the fucking facts. It's not like the media gets stories before they happen, and there's producers and network executives that get all this information and what they are being paid off to not say anything? Why would more than 1 radio station make the crucial mistake of reporting the biggest event in us history before it happened? We need all the facts.

Facts

Conspiracy

Pick one.

If there were any facts, it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory.

If there were any facts, it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory.

If there were any facts it wouldn't be a theory, however it would still be a conspiracy.

If there was a conspiracy that day why would they involve newscasters?

To take control of the narrative.

They didn't need to. There was an unidentified person, purportedly an engineer, who told the fire chiefs at about 11:30 AM that the building would collapse from structural failure "in about five or six hours". That's where the foreknowledge of the collapse traces back to, one guy.

very interesting.

I just imagined Eric Cartman up to one of his shenanigans dressed up in a hard hat and reflective vest convincing everybody to get out.

One mysterious pweson6 in the know who thwarted the higher body count TPTB wanted by warning first responders. They probably had him killed if they found out

Anybody remember this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU_43SwWD9A

That's such a laughable statement to me. This guy somehow knew it would collapse in five to six hours from a fucking fire when a building like that has never collapsed from a fire before in history (except for WTC 1 and 2). Right.

Operation mockingbird. Just doing their jobs.

Is it possible they had the cameras on a delay incase something else was happening so they would be able to censor it and the towers fell before the video showed it and the news anchors were just reacting normally?

Isn't all on a delay? Given how many people jumped from the building my guess is that the tape delay was very likely on.

That's what I've always been told. That's why they can censor swear words before we hear them

Because of the CIAs efforts to demoralize and discredit the vast majority of people who disagree with their narrative leading to a massive cultural belief that all conspiracy theories and theorists are raving lunatics who's claims whold no value.

Isn't it possible they received bad information and reported it without confirming it? They could have received information saying it was going to collapse and somewhere in the chain it got misconstrued.

That's what I think, too.

That and there's no reason to tell the journalists about it... it would just create more risks of information leaking.

This idea would make more sense to me if their "bad information" didn't turn out to be completely on-the-mark.

I know this is probably going to get down voted, but what evidence is there that proves this is live footage as the hosts are reporting it, and not a clip that was recorded and then re-played? For the record, I'm neither for, nor against the argument that there was foreknowledge of collapse of WTC7.

Because at the beginning of the clip she says "another building has collapsed" and then we see the building standing, and at 0:45 she says "it's going down right now"

yeah, right now on the video. Maybe they were replaying the video? I don't see any evidence it was live footage.

Well it seems like the refer to real time and not video time. Watch it again and notice.

They neither confirm nor disconfirm that it's live footage. We can speculate as much we like, but I need proof.

Because the building is going down right now in the footage they are showing? Seriously how dense are you?

So when I replay my 5th grade band recital, that's happening right now? The question OP is asking isn't that absurd. It's possible that the reporters were playing a same day recording on-air that they hadn't personally seen before, as opposed to live footage.

Are you kidding? That's not proof you fucking moron.

Saying that it's going down "right now" doesn't mean that it is. It seems more like a faux pas. It's far from proof.

Yeah this is the first thing that came to my mind too.

• ABC
• NBC
• CNN

The question still remains:

Why would a secretive organization organizing a giant false flag attack include journalists?

It doesn't make sense. The Journalists would have reported on it as usual. Why feed information to more people than necessary?

Is it at all possible that the internal clocks of BBC and Fox are not totally synced with others? Or visa versa?

Heres my weapon of choice regarding this 'conspiracy' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgrunnLcG9Q

So, if all this shit is brought to light, and is PROVEN to be an inside job and it WAS a demolition... What do you think will happen? Will there always be deniers? Will the current government collapse and start a huge revolution?.. Or will people just say "meh.." And continue their lives staring at Facebook and being docile ..?

Did the reporter just say "It SHOULD be going down" like what?

Ok, please be reasonable and think about this:

Given that 911 was a big conspiracy. No discussion there (in here).
Given that therefore some people must have known before about WTC7.

What are the chances, that random news anchors of not only several, but including foreign news outlets are informed beforehand?
I mean, the whole point about conspiracies is secrecy. it would make no sense to have those guys in-the-know.

I can't explain the time difference (maybe images lagging behind more faster channels), but it does not paint a coherent image in my mind.

Yeah I would say I am more conservative and D. TRUMP continues to fund Saudi missles which I am not a big fan of.

You're missing a big one. Ashleigh Banfield also had foreknowledge:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0pKUz8UpSs

This just doesn't make sense. Why would they give anyone foreknowledge and use that for reporting? It's absolutely ludicrous. They don't need to plan it ahead of time. Have the building collapse and people WILL report on it. To prep them ahead of time would be absurd.

I don't know how you think a government can secretly plan and execute the largest terrorist attack in history, but make such a stupid mistake as having it reported before it happens.

There is a delay on live video but not on audio. This is done on purpose to reduce any chances of showing graphic content as well as be able to report better what is happening.

The problem is that 9/11 has faded into the fog of history. I just saw a report about the CIA leaks and almost no one interviewed knew who Edward Snowden is. That bombshell leak was just 3 (or 4?) years back.

Playing devils advocate here? It is possible the video feed was delayed?

Is this before the honeymoon of the government and the media?

Is it possible they are just showing a green screen pre-collapse and considering the hectic day don't have a live feed behind them.

There could have been delay between the televised image and the commentary.

Nope. Just saying when you want something to disappear it's pretty simple. No matter who you are.