[Split from August low content thread here]
The 9-11 Story in 5 Minutes
Nice!
I've posted this before but I think it's a good "wedge" to help get a toehold of doubt in the minds of "true believers" in the official 9/11 story:
Clayton -
Not that I want to turn this into a 9/11 thread, but
here's one of my favorites. It's got 15.2 million views for a reason...
And this one is one of the better exposés of the extensiveness of the coverup. The sad part is there's just not a lot of information available for most of these deaths and disappearences.
Whoever did it must have started working on them 9/12 2001, and didn't stop until the day they were uploaded to youtube. Photoshop is not exactly video compatible.
This is the September Clues disinfo.
Let me give you a simple rundown.
1) Means and opportunity are not a problem if Mr. Silverstein was involved. If he was not involved, it would have been basically impossible.
2) Everyone says "How could they possibly do it???" but then they sent men to the Moon, not to mention developing nuclear bombs in secret. So you tell me what these wonder-men can't do if they put their mind to it.
3) The planes were used as a "gross cause" of the collapses. Because the events of 9/11 were unprecedented, almost nobody can say with certitude that the planes could not have caused a collapse. After all, when just one, tiny O-ring got too cold it blew up the space shuttle. The collapse theory does have gravity on its side + two huge passenger jets flying at high speed.
4) WTC 7 was a gigantic mess. I surmise that the building was supposed to have collapsed immediately after WTC1 or WTC2. Concealed from video by the gigantic dust clouds of one those two buildings, nobody could say for certain that some rumbling in the foundation - in tandem with 'widespread office fires' - hadn't caused the collapse of WTC7. But something went wrong with the demolition which can be seen here. Note the massive gaping hole running the entire height of the building - note that the lines are very straight, suggesting cutting or charges.
They had to come up with a new "scenario" on the fly. They simply decided to forego the rumbling part. "Spontaneous collapse due to fire" was chosen. At that point, the ops guys re-entered the building and began systematically checking/re-wiring the entire building. This must have been extremely hazardous. They were probably entering/leaving the building dressed as firemen.
Silverstein's comment about "pull it" was neither about the demolition of WTC 7 nor not about it. I think he gave that interview with a gun in his ribs - "You fucked up the demolition, so you are going to give an interview and you will say this specific phrase on television." This was a CYA move by the higher-ups; if it comes to it, they can throw Silverstein under the bus and blame it all on "the Jews".
I am puzzled why they didn't wait a couple more hours for darkness to fall before "pulling it". I think they were nervous about a need to re-enter the building in case anything else went wrong and this would have been far harder to do under cover of full darkness. At least during the day they had some light coming in from the windows.
When you go back and look at the WTC 1 & 2 collapse videos, you will notice that both corners of the building give way at precisely the same moment; in some angles, you can see three corners giving way together! How is that possible? If the building collapsed as a result of localized failures, these should have occurred in concatenation. First this girder gave out, then these columns, that put additional stress on this support member, which collapsed and pulled over those beams, and so on. This can, of course, happen extremely fast but no matter how fast, it cannot happen with simultaneity. In all three collapses, this is the hallmark - simultaneous failure across the breadth of the building.
NIST's refutation of any demolition scenario is based on sound. This retutation fails on two counts. First, there were explosions being heard (1:10). Second, if an exotic weapon had been used - such as shaped nano-thermite charges - the sound power from the explosions may have been vastly smaller than standard explosive materials such as TNT.
For those of us that arent 'truthers'. Can someone show me the light? Is there a breakdown step by step of actual FACTS surrounding what yall believe happened? I cant stand these billions of youtube videos that go around spewing 'facts' or just throw out random names and expects the audience to follow what the hell they are talking about.
like how do we know the director of the CIA was having breakfast with the very guy who wired 100k to the alleged lead high jacker of 9/11? any proof? why are they wiring 100k to someone who is about to be a dead man anyways?
who are these random people that have 'mysteriously' died a number of YEARS after 9/11, but we think they 'knew' something?
why do yall claim wtc 7 was brought down?
what did this madam dc lady know? did she know something that she hadnt told anyone yet? if not then why did she need to be killed?
have any of yall read the 9/11 commission? im thinking its about time for me to read it.
I'm not one of those people who think yall are crazy for believing in the conspiracy. The number of people who has to be involved in this attack ( if it is a conspiracy) has to be in the hundreds. Most of them have to be American right? Anyone of you truthers disagree with that?
Why would so many people be willing to go along with this?
For those of us that arent 'truthers'.
I'm not a "truther" because I have no expectation to ever get the truth out of the criminals behind 9/11, in or out of government.
Can someone show me the light? Is there a breakdown step by step of actual FACTS surrounding what yall believe happened?
Have you never heard the term "cover up". It's when someone purposely erases, distorts, mars or fabricates the facts or otherwise frustrates the fact-finding process. Like melting down entire buildings in order to turn them into a battleship, for example.
If you want me to "prove it" to you, forget about it. I couldn't give a hoot whether you "convert" or "change your mind" or "see the truth." If you don't care to know the truth for its own sake, there's nothing I'm going to say that's going to change that. And if you are someone who accepts government statistics and news accounts at face value, well, that's a matter that you'll have to deal with on your own.
I cant stand these billions of youtube videos that go around spewing 'facts' or just throw out random names and expects the audience to follow what the hell they are talking about.
Neither can I. But none of the videos posted are in that category. The 5-minute video posted above makes a "conservative" case for 9/11... in other words, every claim in that video is easily verified. The point of compressing it all down to five minutes is to illustrate the utter absurdity of the broad sweep of the government's story.
\why do yall claim wtc 7 was brought down?
Did you watch the "This is an Orange" video? Can you explain to me what makes the WTC 7 a collapse due solely to fire other than the government's say-so?
No, I'll never read it. I only have so many years in my life, not going to devote a single hour to that piece of nonsense. Any of the true facts in the report can be independently verified, making the report redundant, and those that cannot be independently verified (e.g. the secret testimony of Bush, Cheney, etc.) should be held in question. The report itself is useless.
Not at all. Only the men holding the keys have to be American. The rest could have been done by any intelligence agency with access to exotic demolitions capabilities.
Why are so many people willing to go along with drug-running, gun-running, money-laundering, gang murder or bootlegging (back in the day), etc.? Answer that question and you will have the answer to your question.
Here's one I hadn't ever seen before. Get a load of the expert input...right there, on the scene. I love it.
It seemed plausible to me at the time. I didn't fully understand the implications of the relative strength-of-materials. Think if the airplane had been made of plastic resin or fiberglass. Would it have penetrated?
I shouldn't have said September Clues is disinfo. It's a very daring hypothesis but - if pushed too far - it can become disinfo. I think the September Clues argument has one very persuasive point - whoever pulled off 9/11 would not have wanted any solid evidence lying around and video tape is among the most persuasive form of evidence there is. I suspect some of the same players that were involved with JFK were involved with this and they got their fingers burnt pretty badly with the footage from that incident.
And to give you an idea of how tightly controlled the 9/11 footage actually is, go search "WTC 7 South Face". I have been able to turn up precisely two shots of the south face of WTC 7 prior to its collapse. New York was a beeshive of cameras on that day, yet a person can find only two shots of the south face??
clayton - I'm not attacking you. I'm asking because i truly want to know. I'm open to believing it is an inside job I just need just a single FACT to go off of. I know you are calling it a cover up, but they cant cover up everything. Something HAS to be there to prove that its a conspiracy. I've seen a lot of the videos and a lot of them are convincing, but nothing that is proven (to me).
Why would you not want to try and convert everyone? If what you say is true then imagine the flow of antigovernment ideas that would come out of it. Converting a single person could make all the difference.
no offense, but anyone can do a 5 minute video of what you claim happened and it would look more insane then that. Then again thats the nature of conspiracies.
this is an orange - ya ive seen that video and it is pretty convincing. I think something about wtc7 could prove to me that it was an inside job, i just havent seen it yet. And i was asking why would they want to bring down that building in the first place? just for insurance money?
what do you think the secret testimony of bush/cheney revealed? You think they would of told the truth?
I'm more than willing to the leg work and read if you can point me in the right direction. Is there a web page that is pretty close to what you think is accurate with everything that happened?
I think something about wtc7 could prove to me that it was an inside job, i just havent seen it yet.
I don't understand what you're looking for. Doesn't the testimony of your own eyeballs count as evidence/fact? Unless the WTC7 collapse videos are fabricated (which I doubt), the evidence is right there in the video. The building clear did not collapse from fire, not because it is "impossible" for fire to collapse a steel building - as many falsely claim - but because it defies reason that a steel building that was not hit by an airplane, had no core damage (by NIST's own admission), whose foundations were sound (NIST), etc. to collapse in the manner that WTC7 did - sudden, symmetrical collapse simultaneously across the entire breadth of the building.
If WTC7 had collapsed in this way the day before, with no airplanes/WTC1/WTC2, you wouldn't suspect demolition? You'd be insane not to. If it's not a cover-up, why did NIST classify its simulation of the building's collapse? Also, if you read the NIST report (which I have), you will see that its description of their core column collapse scenario is a beautiful description of the exact order and sequence in which the columns would have collapsed in a controlled-demolition... minus any mention of explosives. In other words, even the NIST cover-up report says that the columns suddenly failed in an order and timing perfectly consistent with a controlled demolition. They rule out demolition primarily on the basis of sound.
As for a reading list, I recommend starting here. WTC7 is one of the two biggest gaping holes in the official conspiracy theory. The other is the incredible lack of response to the attacks from the air defense network, which he lays out in detail. There are many other holes, of course, but those are the two "slap-in-the-face obvious" holes. His most famous book is New Pearl Harbor but if you want to get the latest info, start with 9/11 Ten Years Later.
Why would you not want to try and convert everyone?
Because this strategy is based on a reversal of cause-and-effect. Belief in the government's 9/11 bullshit is the effect of widespread credulity toward government, generally. Look at a 2007 Peter Schiff laugh-down video on YouTube. "Ben Bernanke said there's no housing bubble, you say there is a bubble in the housing market... what a tard! HAHAHAHA! Like the government would purposely lie about something like that!" People watch this stuff on TV and eat it up, laughing along with the hosts at the idiotic contrarians who are too stupid to "get it" that government doesn't lie and the news media always reports true and relevant facts.
Attacking the symptom will not heal the disease. People - Americans, especially - need to learn that government lies. It doesn't just lie once in a while on a few things for the sake of national security. It lies constantly about almost everything and almost never for reasons that have anything to do with public safety or defense. That's why it's so easy to poke holes in any government story or statistic. Just pick any random official declaration made by the government, think for a few minutes about how the program actually serves the government's interests and about how they are spinning it to make it sound like it serves our interests instead. The wool will fall from your eyes and you will see.
But this requires a root change in attitude. Those who are undergoing a shift in attitude will seek out the relevant facts and evidence required to see the error of their former attitudes. Those who are entrenched in their ways will only dig in their heels and, to the extent they look into the issues at all, simply consult "debunking" arguments to assuage any nagging doubts that may have been raised in their minds.
thanks.
Ya to be honest i dont recall ever knowing about WTC7 until a little over a year ago, but i do agree it very unrealistic for the building to collapse from fire AND then collapse that way.
I've heard somewhere that there are really only a few companies in the world that do demolitions for buildings (maybe i heard for large buildings). The best company is a firm in Vegas for obvious reason, but they do almost all major demolitions in the US. Has anyone interviewed those guys and asked their opinions? (the video i saw about this company was completely unrelated to 9/11. i think it was a travel channel show on vegas)
Has anyone interviewed those guys and asked their opinions?
This interview is pretty interesting.
Give them fear, and they will trust the guys with the big guns (military).
It happened in germany. It happens now.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Also, don't forget about these guys.
Wow.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
A lot of nuttery in this thread.. You point to the WTC7 videos so watch the whole video! You can see BEFORE the building collapses its central penthouse area does, as a result of hours of intense fires having weakened the building. As the penthouse collapses, it creates a low pressure vacuum that causes the rest of the building to follow up evenly without falling appart, creating the illusion of a controlled demolition.
link! There are a lot of videos out there, which one do you think is the whole video?
Clayton said: "Unless the WTC7 collapse videos are fabricated (which I doubt), the evidence is right there in the video. "
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/w4Vrsjs_cLg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Or, if my embed didn't work, direct link here.
Regards, onebornfree.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
"we already know all 'airplane' impact videos were forged: this much is proven"
onebornfree - you dont believe that do you? none the less a very impressive video.
grant.w.underwood: "we already know all 'airplane' impact videos were forged: this much is proven" onebornfree - you dont believe that do you? none the less a very impressive video.
I'm afraid so. Here's a brief summary of what I 99.99% believe to date, so you may name call or whatever to your hearts content.
1]: the original 9/11 MSM broadcasts [all US stations] were all 100% prefabricated digital fakes. There were no live broadcasts from downtown Manhattan [nor from the Pentagon "crash" scene] that day.
2] Consequently all of the alleged "live" MSM footage of the collapses of WTC1, 2, and 7 are also digital , pre-fabricated computer generated fakes. There was no original live collapse footage broadcast that day for any building in the WTC complex [or at the Pentagon] .
2] All of the "plane crash into building videos" of either network or amateur origin, and for either WTC1 [Fl.11], or 2 [Fl.175], are also 100% digital fakes, not live footage shot by intrepid heroic cameramen/women .See also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ
4] All of the post 9/11 higher resolution videos and stills released , of either buildings collapsing, or of planes flying into buildings [all mostly released in 2007 and 2010] , and allegedly either taken by the government or "amateurs" , are also digitally created fakes.
5] Most, or possibly all of the roughly 3,000 alleged victims never died, because they never existed in the first place. Most, if not all are computer generated persons manufactured via face-morphing software and then given false background histories. In other words, these "persons" only existed in computer files, never in the real world. See also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoZEuj1VPv0
Regards, onebornfree
onebornfree - personally i would think that would be almost impossible to be that HUGE. This is a FREEDOM forum why would anyone name call for someones beliefs?
Questions though:
there are people that actually worked on a daily basis in the twin towers you arent refuting that are you? So are you suggesting that ppl were told not to come in early that day? or how is it possible to bring down that those buildings without killing a decent amount of people?
what about the firefighters? that Jeremy Glick guy who lost his father on 9/11 he thinks its a huge conspiracy too. Arent you implying that he is an actor too?
so there werent even planes that crashed into the WTC at all? or are you suggesting (which i think is plausible) that they were drone planes for eye witness reports, and that just the photo evidence is fake?
One of the denses populations in the US (especially during business hours), in the wealthiest city in the world (camera phones might of been rare, but lots of people had pocket cameras), in either the 1st or 2nd largest filmography/photography/paparazzi cities in the world (for sure in the US, not really sure about the world. it makes it more dramatic if i say world ), that not a single person released a video that wasnt a fake? What makes you so sure that this didnt happen?
Personally I have come to believe there is conspiracy. However it's not some secret world government plotting behind closed doors but a conspiracy of people hiding their crass incompetence and/or deliberate mistakes.
1) I remember when I visited the WTC in 1982 we were clearly told the buildings could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft. What if the buildings were really not that sound and somebody in the appropriate NYC office closed both eyes on the matter?
2) What, if after years of running around the world protecting "freedom and democracy" somebody realized the mainland USA didn't have an effective air defense anymore in spite of an enormous "defense" budget?
3) What if the air defense systems were available but, due to crass incompetence on part of the much glorified military, they weren't used?
4) What if airport security measures in place by at least two decades (trust me, I spent the '80s and the '90s setting off metal detectors all over Europe and the US and being frisked by LaWanda's predecessors. I'll tell you only this: for God's sake, don't set off a metal detector in Belgium) were only designed for psychological reasons and not to stop real hijackers?
5) What if intelligence agencies, including the fabled Mossad, had really been caught unaware? The first rule in the intelligence community is "You must pretend you knew all along, especially when you are caught with your pants down".
6) What if intelligence did its job but was ignored by those who had to decide what to do with the info? What if the reports were simply ignored?
7) What if somebody knew a fair share of the blame laid on not allowing crews and passengers to fight back? After all the hijackers were armed with box cutters (or at least this is the official story) not machine guns. A couple of hostesses with Beretta's (the Israelis have had frangible bullets that can be used inside pressurized airplanes since the early '80s) could have taken them out or at least stopped them from reaching the cockpit before a distress call was sent.
8) What if, at least minute, somebody understood what was going on and deliberately made a quick decision to let the attacks proceed?
Of course these are nothing more than mere speculations. I have taken a blow to the head too many and may have a touch of Alzheimer's but in my life I learned a precious lesson: never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained with stupidity (and incompetence).
Of course there may be a sinister conspiracy at large but while people are busy debating about controlled demolitions and structural damages few have considered bureaucracies tend to be staffed by idiots and tremendously prone to crass mistakes.
I am loathe to disagree with Kakugo but I think that is precisely what the 9/11 Commission said. "Oops, mea culpa, the bureaucracies are inefficient that's why we need to create a super-bureaucracy (DHS)... and no one will be fired because 'no one could have imagined this scenario, it's just too evil.'" They blamed it on "lack of imaination" and "barriers to communication between intelligence agencies." And then we got DHS, TSA and the PATRIOT Act - the biggest power grab since FDR - to "solve" these problems. How convenient.
As far as the principle of not attributing to malice what can be explained by incompetence, I would not that this principle should only be applied as far as the government fails to achieve its stated goals. This is because its stated goals are not its actual (praxeological) goals - the government does not really care about the poor or the defense of the person and property of its citizens, it only pretends to care to the extent required to maintain an illusion with the majority - buttressed by propaganda - that it actually does care.
But when it comes to the actual (praxeological) goals of the State, it is not incompetent at all. It is stunningly efficient. As the parasite par excellence, its primary praxeological goal is to live at the public's expense. To accomplish this overarching goal, it must tax, inflate, expand its debts, wage unnecessary wars on foreigners, implement stifling controls at home and on the borders, monopolize lines of economic production, control the movement of goods, services and information, divide groups that would naturally congregate and force association between groups that would naturally segregate (divide-and-conquer, unify-and-conquer), implement all manner of central-planning and "egalitarian" redistribution schemes, and so on. The State is ultimately ruled by the hereditary class of natural elites of parasitism.
Viewed in this light, and in combination with the many other Big Lies promulgated by this very same Establishment (Google "Operation Northwoods" "Sinking of the Lusitania" and "Gulf of Tonkin") the official explanation of 9/11 is no longer merely a transparent and benign CYA of incompetents. It is that for all those incompetents who were not on the inside track and really were caught with their pants down.
Please read David Ray Griffin's books on this subject. He deals only in verifiable facts and when you see how he lays it out, you realize that there is really no intelligent way to understand 9/11 as a "big accident". It just isn't.
On the question of video fakery, I would recommend that everyone watch this. I think that OBF's position is too extreme. It doesn't make sense for the video footage to be 100% pre-fabricated... surely, someone would have snapped a photo that would have contradicted the fake footage. If they faked it, they used layering as shown in the linked video (e.g. look at the "nose out" mistake). This would have permitted them to fabricate the planes while preserving factual footage of the "impact" (perhaps they used a cruise missile or perhaps they just planted explosives and relied on TV to convince people that there had been planes).
"All of the post 9/11 higher resolution videos and stills released , of either buildings collapsing, or of planes flying into buildings [all mostly released in 2007 and 2010] , and allegedly either taken by the government or "amateurs" , are also digitally created fakes." This just isn't true and doesn't make sense. The video addresses this for the cruise-missile hypothesis (electromagnetic jamming/denial combined with sweeps for film) but no measure could have guaranteed that not a single still photo of the building collapse would be caught by any amateur photographer - they're visible for miles and miles in every direction. Sep. 11 was a clear day.
And there were real people in the buildings, though probably not 3,000.
Take it up with NIST; they said the core columns collapsed in the lower floors in rapid-fire success. "Low-pressure" played no role in the collapse according to the NIST report (that would be the official story that you are apparently trying to rebuke us for rejecting).
The one conspiracy I do believe in was that the government probably let 9/11 happen. Same way they let Pearl Harbor happen 70 years ago as an excuse to enter the war. I'm not sure I believe in the other 9/11 conspiracies though.
I do think that it is possible that the Patriot Act was already written before 9/11.
it is possible that the Patriot Act was already written before 9/11.
I can't find the cite right now, but language from several bills that had been pushed by the law enforcement establishment (FBI et. al.) prior to 9/11 is present in the PATRIOT, verbatim.
Al_Gore the Idiot:I do think that it is possible that the Patriot Act was already written before 9/11.
My understanding is that most of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act legislation was written during the Clinton presidency as a result of the OKC bombing. But it failed to pass at that time and was therefor just "put on the back burner" until 9/11.
Isn't this how that law was written? I remember Judge Napolitano saying that the PATRIOT Act is meant to be difficult to read for the sake of blindly passing it when it was just a bill. He said that it's basically a compilation of edits to various pieces of the entire US Code. In order to even read The PATRIOT Act, one must have the entire US Code in front of them in addition to the law itself.
Or do I have it wrong?
That seems very plausible.
Forgive me if this has already been addressed, I've just skimmed some of the responses, but why would the perpetrators feel it necessary to take out Building 7? What was housed in that particular building that needed to be destroyed? It just seems greedy, for lack of a better word, to destroy the 2 towers and then also want to get Building 7.
I mean, put yourself in charge of masterminding this thing. You have the 2 planes crash into the towers and then use explosives to finish them off. That seems reasonable; the public will believe that. But then you decide to destroy a building that didn't get hit by a plane. That just seems to me to be beyond stupidity. It's as if you wanted to invite the investigation.
grant.w.underwood:This is a FREEDOM forum why would anyone name call for someones beliefs?
You'd be surprised. Just check some of the older, locked 9/11 threads here out .
grant.w.underwood:there are people that actually worked on a daily basis in the twin towers you arent refuting that are you? So are you suggesting that ppl were told not to come in early that day? or how is it possible to bring down that those buildings without killing a decent amount of people?
My current belief is that the towers were empty and had been mostly that way for years. The occupants were mostly fictitious, it seems.
grant.w.underwood: what about the firefighters? that Jeremy Glick guy who lost his father on 9/11 he thinks its a huge conspiracy too. Arent you implying that he is an actor too?
I'm not entirely sure without more checking, but the odds are good he is an actor[ as there are so may others].
grant.w.underwood:so there werent even planes that crashed into the WTC at all? or are you suggesting (which i think is plausible) that they were drone planes for eye witness reports, and that just the photo evidence is fake?
I assert that it is impossible to know, given the fakeness of all of the videos depicting planes entering buildings. Planes may well have been in the area that morning ,and genuine witnesses might well have seen them, but there appears to be no solid proof that any of them flew into buildings.[Nor at the Pentagon or into the ground at Shanksville]
grant.w.underwood:One of the denses populations in the US (especially during business hours), in the wealthiest city in the world (camera phones might of been rare, but lots of people had pocket cameras), in either the 1st or 2nd largest filmography/photography/paparazzi cities in the world (for sure in the US, not really sure about the world. it makes it more dramatic if i say world ), that not a single person released a video that wasnt a fake? What makes you so sure that this didnt happen?
Cell phone cameras did not exist in 2001 as far as I am aware. True, people had regular video cameras etc. and so someone, somewhere must have genuine 9/11 footage of something or other. And yet, every piece of 9/11 footage examined, at least at this site: http://www.septemberclues.info/ , bears unmistakeable signs of being fraudulent.
Also bear in mind that it is virtually impossible to track, with a camera, an aircraft flying at the alleged speed of 500 mph close to the ground, ask any sports photographer who has tried to track Formula 1 race cars at 180 mph or whatever.
One theory is that all cameras in Manhattan and surrounding areas were made inoperable via H.E.R.F. or similar technology, [apparently a normal military procedure] .
What would be the motive behind demolishing WTC 7? I don't doubt it could have been done simply for the added effect. But I think I read once, or heard, that the SEC and various other government agencies used space in the building for file storage, and that some incriminating documentation was destroyed along with the building. Anyone know anything about that?
Prime: Forgive me if this has already been addressed, I've just skimmed some of the responses, but why would the perpetrators feel it necessary to take out Building 7? What was housed in that particular building that needed to be destroyed? It just seems greedy, for lack of a better word, to destroy the 2 towers and then also want to get Building 7. I mean, put yourself in charge of masterminding this thing. You have the 2 planes crash into the towers and then use explosives to finish them off. That seems reasonable; the public will believe that. But then you decide to destroy a building that didn't get hit by a plane. That just seems to me to be beyond stupidity. It's as if you wanted to invite the investigation.
There were a total of 9 buildings in the WTC complex. All of them were destroyed on 9/11.
Well, I found this:
"FACT 2: WTC Building 7 – on its 23rd floor – housed an Emergency Command Center for the City of New York that Mayor Rudolph Giuliani had built in the mid-1990’s. On the morning of September 11th, Mayor Giuliani did not go “to his Command Center – with its clear view of the Twin Towers – but to a makeshift, street-level headquarters at 75 Barkley Street.” WTC 7 also held the offices of numerous government agencies, including the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Secret Service, the IRS, and the Security and Exchange Commission. Late 2001 was the time of “the height of the investigation into Enron, so the majority of Enron’s SEC filings were likely destroyed when World Trade Center 7 came down.”"
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
"I'm not entirely sure without more checking, but the odds are good he is an actor[ as there are so may others]." -- Onebornfree.
I'm sorry but I can't just let this one go. You can't just say it's an actor and then move on. These "actors" have families, neighbors, relatives, coworkers, etc... I mean, aren't these people still walking around today? Aren't some of the wives of the men on board the planes still doing interviews? Surely some acquantance would stand up and cry foul!
Phi, if you were the mayor of New York, would you have rushed to your command center located at the foot of 2 burning WTC towers? I wouldn't have, seems kind of dangerous if you ask me.
Forgive me if this has already been addressed, I've just skimmed some of the responses, but why would the perpetrators feel it necessary to take out Building 7? What was housed in that particular building that needed to be destroyed? It just seems greedy, for lack of a better word, to destroy the 2 towers and then also want to get Building 7. I mean, put yourself in charge of masterminding this thing. You have the 2 planes crash into the towers and then use explosives to finish them off. That seems reasonable; the public will believe that. But then you decide to destroy a building that didn't get hit by a plane. That just seems to me to be beyond stupidity. It's as if you wanted to invite the investigation.
People have put forward hypotheses on everything from covering up the Enron scandal (SEC had offices in WTC 7) to covering up OKC (which was itself an inside job) as the FBI purportedly had files on OKC in WTC 7. Secret Service and even CIA had offices there. The office of the mayor of NYC also had a command-and-control bunker on the 23rd floor. Some have speculated that this bunker was used to coordinate the whole scenario. The burning and demolition of WTC 7 would wrap it all up quite nicely.
In any case, I think that footage of the north face of WTC 7 shows that WTC 7's demolition was botched and actually occurred in two stages. The first stage was probably initiated less than an hour after the second tower collapse or - my theory - immediately subsequent to it (the idea being to claim that the collapse of the larger tower triggered some kind of failure in the foundation of WTC 7 that - in combination with its raging office fires - triggered its collapse. But this initiation "fizzled" and only one section of explosive charges blew, leaving a gaping hole running the entire height of the building, visible on the north face in a couple chopper shots on YT - hardly any footage of this face of WTC 7 even exists.
The building collapsed so much later because demo teams had to re-enter the building; throughout the day they had to check and re-check every charge and wire in the building to be absolutely sure that this time, it blew properly. After the dust settled, the higher-ups realized that this was a real gaping hole in the "unprecedented-therefore-plausible collapse story" where two planes smash into two buildings and not only trigger their collapse but the collapse of a third as a "freak accident". From that day forward, almost no mention was made in the media of WTC 7. All 9/11 memorial footage always depicts just the twin tower collapse sequences. For a long time, many Americans were not even aware that there was a third building collapse at the WTC.
To CYA, they decided Mr. Silverstein would be the fall-guy for this error. They ordered him to participate in a TV interview; in that interview, he would say the precise phrase "so the order was given to pull it and then we watched the building come down"; just confusing and ambiguous enough that it wouldn't raise eyebrows on its own but still specific enough that it could be used as incriminating evidence in a smear campaign if any kind of 9/11-investigation ever got traction on this particular issue. "Time to earn your insurance money, Mr. Silverstein!"