Tower 7 Collapse- 9/11- BBC2 Documentary

cooperguy

So did anybody see the BBC2 programme thats just about to end "The Conspiracy Files" that explains how Tower 7 collapsed during 9/11. Are all the conspiracy theorists satisfied?

Kernel

cooperguy wrote: »

So did anybody see the BBC2 programme thats just about to end "The Conspiracy Files" that explains how Tower 7 collapsed during 9/11. Are all the conspiracy theorists satisfied?

Never. 911 was an inside job.

cooperguy

Kernel wrote: »

Never. 911 was an inside job.

And you know this because.....

Mahatma coat

We hold these truths to be self evident.....

either it was known about andlet happenby the Govt bodies at the timeto further their sinister agenda, or its one of the biggest series of freak coincidences ever

Run_to_da_hills

cooperguy wrote: »

And you know this because.....

Interesting facts and unanswered questions on WTC 7

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/wtc7.htm

http://www.wtc7.net/

cooperguy

Actually all that was pretty much covered in the documentary. Oh and the fires in WTC7 were FAR from small by the way

Penn

I thought the best bit of that programme was when a guy from the government explained something, then the Loose Change guy shouted "WELL OF COURSE HE'D SAY THAT! HE WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT!"

Perfect example of how people who still think it was an inside job are idiots. They demand investigations into 9/11, then say the report is a lie because it was compiled by the government. So much proof has been provided by independant bodies that prove it was not an inside job, yet people refuse to believe it.

The funniest thing about WTC7 is that people are saying there was lots of gold bullion under it and it was destroyed so the government could move it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasnt that gold bullion controlled by the government anyway? Surely they could move it if they wanted to.

Run_to_da_hills

cooperguy wrote: »

And you know this because.....

It is as obvious as dogs ba*lls.

Website with interesting links and quotes.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/911.htm

FrostyJack

Anything with jesus-is-savoir in the title is going to be full of bs especially when the 3rd major quote is by Hitler............

Climate Expert

cooperguy wrote: »

So did anybody see the BBC2 programme thats just about to end "The Conspiracy Files" that explains how Tower 7 collapsed during 9/11. Are all the conspiracy theorists satisfied?

They will never be satisfied. They suffer from a mild mental illness which distorts how the way their brain interprets facts and evidence.

TriciaDelicia

Conspiracy theorists will never be happy with any explanations given about anything they believe to be true no matter how false it may seem.

Run_to_da_hills

FrostyJack wrote: »

Anything with jesus-is-savoir in the title is going to be full of bs especially when the 3rd major quote is by Hitler............

David J Strwart the administrator of that site may be a off the wall in much of his content but some of the "non christian" links he includes are interesting and bear some credibility.

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Interesting facts and unanswered questions on WTC 7

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/wtc7.htm

http://www.wtc7.net/

Seriously I'm tired and should be in bed so I'm not gonna rehash the several times that most of this stuff has be shown not to be true. You CT's can be shown clearly and concisely that what you believe is not so and you still believe it no matter what. :mad:

Kernel

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Perfect example of how people who still think it was an inside job are idiots.

No, people who believe that the towers fell because of a shadowy plan enacted by a boogeyman in a cave (who worked for the CIA previously) - involving stanley knife wielding jihadists hijacking planes while the eastern USAF was on training exercises far away from the event are the idiots.
(Allah, I swore I wouldn't get embroiled in another 911 thread here!)

cooperguy

Kernel wrote: »

No, people who believe that the towers fell because of a shadowy plan enacted by a boogeyman in a cave (who worked for the CIA previously) - involving stanley knife wielding jihadists hijacking planes while the eastern USAF was on training exercises far away from the event are the idiots.
(Allah, I swore I wouldn't get embroiled in another 911 thread here!)

As opposed to the people who think the towers fell (and WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition because a plane wouldn't do for some reason) because of a boogeyman in the Whitehouse, involving high tech CIA agents hijacking plans to kill their fellow citizens and the secret being kept for years by the many hundreds of people involved in the operation as well as independently investigating.

FrostyJack

(who worked for the CIA previously)

You do know he's (was) a millionaire, the only reason he gained rank in the Mujahideen? He never "worked" for them and had no need to.

Mahatma coat

can anyone confirm or deny, that during the forced grounding of ALL flights in the US directly after the incident, one plande did take off, flying to Saudi Arabia with members of the Bin Laden family?

FrostyJack

The USAF and the workers on the airport would know if they took off, I'm sure they'll confirm it for you :pac:

Zascar

I thought the most interesting part was when the guy said that the govenment would not have the competence to pull off such a massive plan, and keep it secret at the same time...

Penn

Zascar wrote: »

I thought the most interesting part was when the guy said that the govenment would not have the competence to pull off such a massive plan, and keep it secret at the same time...

Not to mention the fact that the Republican Party were only in power about 9 months at this point. I doubt such a massive plan could have been organised in such a short period of time. Or by Bush in an infinite amount of time

humanji

Mahatma coat wrote: »

can anyone confirm or deny, that during the forced grounding of ALL flights in the US directly after the incident, one plande did take off, flying to Saudi Arabia with members of the Bin Laden family?

Seems to be another rumour (sorry for the dodgy formatting. Snopes is being a little funny and won't let me copy and paste propery):

snopes wrote:

Flights of Fancy
Claim: Secret flights whisked bin Laden family members and Saudi nationals out of the U.S. immediately after September 11 while a general ban on air travel was still in effect, and before the FBI had any opportunity to question any of the passengers.

Status:False.

Origins: In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the Federal Aviation Administration immediately ordered all flights in the United
States grounded, and that ban stayed in effect until September 13. (Even then, for that first day commercial carriers were mostly either completing the interrupted flights of September 11 or repositioning empty aircraft in anticipation of the resumption of full service. New passenger flights did not generally resume until the 14th.) During that two-day period of full lock-down, only the military and specially FAA-authorized flights that delivered life-saving medical necessities were in the air. The enforcement of the empty skies directive was so stringent that even after the United Network for Organ Sharing sought and gained FAA clearance to use charter aircraft on September 12 to effect time-critical deliveries of organs for transplant, one of its flights carrying a human heart was forced to the ground in Bellingham, Washington, 80 miles short of its Seattle destination, by two Navy F/A-18 fighters. (The organ completed its journey after being transferred to a helicopter.)

The claim that bin Laden family members (and other Saudis) were allowed to secretly fly out of the U.S. and back to Saudi Arabia while a government-imposed ban on air travel was in effect, all without any intervention by the FBI, has since been negated by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission"). In their final report, the commission noted: Three questions have arisen with respect to the departure of Saudi nationals from the United States in the immediate aftermath of 9/11: (1) Did any flights of Saudi nationals take place before national airspace reopened on September 13, 2001? (2) Was there any political intervention to facilitate the departure of Saudi nationals? (3) Did the FBI screen Saudi nationals thoroughly before their departure?

First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.

Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of [National Security Council official] Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals ... The President and Vice President told us they were not aware of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media. None of the officials we interviewed recalled any intervention or direction on this matter from any political appointee.

Third, we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United State on charter flights. The Saudi government was advised of and agree to the FBI's requirements that passengers be identified and checked against various databases before the flights departed. The Federal Aviation Administration representative working in the FBI operations center made sure that the FBI was aware of the flights of Saudi nationals and was able to screen the passengers before they were allowed to depart.

The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.
The 9/11 Commission also expanded on the following points in footnotes to the section of the report quoted above: During the morning of September 11, the FAA suspended all nonemergency air activity in the national airspace. While the national airspace was closed, decisions to allow aircraft to fly were made by the FAA working with the Department of Defense, Department of State, U.S. Secret Service, and the FBI. The Department of Transportation reopened the national airspace to U.S. carriers effective 11:00 A.M. on September 13, 2001, for flights out of or into airports that had implemented the FAA's new security requirements.

After the airspace reopened, nine chartered flights with 160 people, mostly Saudi nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. In addition, one Saudi government flight, containing the Saudi deputy defense minister and other members of an official Saudi delegation, departed Newark Airport on September 14. Every airport involved in these Saudi flights was open when the flight departed, and no inappropriate actions were taken to allow those flights to depart.

Another particular allegation is that a flight carrying Saudi nationals from Tampa, Florida, to Lexington, Kentucky, was allowed to fly while airspace was closed, with special approval by senior U.S. government officials. On September 13, Tampa police brought three young Saudis they were protecting on an off-duty security detail to the airport so they could get on a plane to Lexington. Tampa police arranged for two more private investigators to provide security on the flight. They boarded a chartered Learjet. The plane took off at 4:37 P.M., after national airspace was open, more than five hours after the Tampa airport had reopened, and after other flights had arrived at and departed from that airport. The three Saudi nationals debarked from the plane and were met by local police. Their private security guards were paid. and the police then escorted the three Saudi passengers to a hotel where they joined relatives already in Lexington. The FBI is alleged to have had no record of the flight and denied that it occurred, hence contributing to the story of a "phantom flight." This is another misunderstanding. The FBI was initially misinformed about how the Saudis got to Lexington by a local police officer in Lexington who did not have firsthand knowledge of the matter. The Bureau subsequently learned about the flight.

These flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI. For example, one flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. Screening of this flight was directed by an FBI agent in the Baltimore Field Office who was also a pilot ... The Bin Ladin flight and other flights we examined were screened in accordance with policies set by FBI headquarters and coordinated through working-level interagency processes. Although most of the passengers were not interviewed, 22 of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.

Zascar

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Not to mention the fact that the Republican Party were only in power about 9 months at this point. I doubt such a massive plan could have been organised in such a short period of time. Or by Bush in an infinite amount of time

Totally. What should be under more investigation is the "Plane" that hit the whitehouse Pentagon. I mean that is clearly being covered up.

Penn

Zascar wrote: »

Totally. What should be under more investigation is the "Plane" that hit the whitehouse. I mean that is clearly being covered up.

Yeah, and all the planes heading for the Empire State Building. Luckily King Kong was able to swat them down before they hit it. I've seen video evidence of it. And the remake of the video evidence starring Jack Black :rolleyes:

cooperguy

Im sorry. A plane hit the Whitehouse now? How come nobody noticed!!

Zascar

Pentagon - DOH!

Penn

if anyone has seen Loose Change and believes that 9/11 was faked etc, theres a site you can go to from the Loose Change Wikipedia page which debunks all their theories and statistics one by one. Including the plane that hit the White Hou... sorry... Pentagon

Zascar

So how come a very large plane aparently hit the Pentagon, yet there was no evidence of wings or engines etc. Aparently it was 'vaporised' by the jet fuel, yet they were still able to find passports and identify bodies etc. Hmmmmmm...

Climate Expert

Zascar wrote: »

So how come a very large plane aparently hit the Pentagon, yet there was no evidence of wings or engines etc. Aparently it was 'vaporised' by the jet fuel, yet they were still able to find passports and identify bodies etc. Hmmmmmm...

Are you saying it wasn't a plane that hit the WTC?

Penn

Zascar wrote: »

So how come a very large plane aparently hit the Pentagon, yet there was no evidence of wings or engines etc. Aparently it was 'vaporised' by the jet fuel, yet they were still able to find passports and identify bodies etc. Hmmmmmm...

There was evidence of wings and engines. I saw pictures of both on one of the sites I mentioned a minute ago

meglome

Zascar wrote: »

So how come a very large plane aparently hit the Pentagon, yet there was no evidence of wings or engines etc. Aparently it was 'vaporised' by the jet fuel, yet they were still able to find passports and identify bodies etc. Hmmmmmm...

Simply not true. There's bits of plane all over the place if you look at the pictures. There are lamposts knocked to the ground exactly where the plane was supposed to come in, lamposts that have dints in the tops of them where something hit them. The plane crossed a city and a major highway on the way in, hundreds of people saw it. There can be little doubt that a plane hit the pentagon.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

No, people who believe that the towers fell because of a shadowy plan enacted by a boogeyman in a cave (who worked for the CIA previously) - involving stanley knife wielding jihadists hijacking planes while the eastern USAF was on training exercises far away from the event are the idiots.
(Allah, I swore I wouldn't get embroiled in another 911 thread here!)

I not only agree, I'd put it even more strongly....

Anyone who believes that bogeymen in a cave enacted the plan are complete raving lunatics.

Of course, thats not what the official account says in the first place, nor (I believe) what anyone here has ever argued, so I would argue that it is a straw-man.

Smudgeyboy

If nothing had gone on, we wouldnt all be still talking about it.

Do you know what's missing here? An investigation.

But instead of this we get these bi-annual 9/11 theories debunking shows on BBC, heightened government power, daily talk of 'terror' fears on the news leading to an easily manipulated, scared public.

They really arent doing themselves any favours by doing everything a government wanting control would do and nothing a government wanting to protect it's public would do.


Not to mention the similarities of the event with the Tower card of the Tarot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tower_(Tarot_card)

It's well known many ex-presidents of the U.S are into the Occult.

I'd like to remind everyone that the occult is simply hidden knowledge, accepting it's relevance could be very important in finding the hidden knowledge of the Illuminati.

I fail to see how any fire/plane or anything other than a demolition can explain WTC7.

No fire has ever done that to a building, ever. I also question the arguement that 'conspiracy theorists' (what an example of 'group think' the connotation that those words bring) find it 'conveinient' to believe such things, it's far from convienient adjusting to new truths.

Smudgeyboy

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

Not to mention the similarities of the event with the Tower card of the Tarot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tower_(Tarot_card)

Thats Amazing!
Remember how all those tarot readers where able to predict the attacks before hand and warned everyone.




Ooh wait.......

Smudgeyboy

Hey, you tell me why the illuminati believe in it.

Smudgeyboy

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

Hey, you tell me why the illuminati believe in it.

Because the their existence and actions are apparently deeply dependant on your imagination.

But tell me, how do you know they use tarot cards?

And for that matter do you want to try and explain why not a single tarot reader predicted 9/11 or are they in on it too?

Smudgeyboy

If you dont know the illuminati are into the occult or 'hidden knowledge' by now you dont want to know, Im sick of providing links to people who dont want them.

The tarot itself an illuminati teaching.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Tarot

If you question this, why not question the subject yourself further instead of coming back on here and speaking to me in such a demeaning way again.

I remind you we've never had a conversation and you have no idea who I am. Insults only come from someone afraid. Take what you want from that.

Smudgeyboy

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

If you dont know the illuminati are into the occult or 'hidden knowledge' by now you dont want to know, Im sick of providing links to people who dont want them.

The tarot itself an illuminati teaching.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Tarot

Well if you read it on the internet is must be true>

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

If you question this, why not question the subject yourself further instead of coming back on here and speaking to me in such a demeaning way again.

I remind you we've never had a conversation and you have no idea who I am. Insults only come from someone afraid. Take what you want from that.

I do question it, because your arguments lack any logical basis.
So what exactly am I afraid of? I'd love to know.

cooperguy

Smudgeyboy wrote:

If nothing had gone on, we wouldnt all be still talking about it.

Do you know what's missing here? An investigation.

Im sorry but I think your a bit mistaken. The program was on the investigation, the results of which were released this year. It also dealt with the main alternative theories surrounding the event. Though admittedly there was no mention of tarrot cards......


Oh and the reason people are still talking about it is because people love a good story, especially if it involves corrupt people in power and the struggle to reveal the truth.

Penn

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

I fail to see how any fire/plane or anything other than a demolition can explain WTC7.

No fire has ever done that to a building, ever. I also question the arguement that 'conspiracy theorists' (what an example of 'group think' the connotation that those words bring) find it 'conveinient' to believe such things, it's far from convienient adjusting to new truths.

But it wasnt just the fire. Dont forget that 2 very large buildings collapsed right beside it. The amount of debris which hit the building coupled with the vibrational effects of the towers collapsing PLUS the fire all contributed to WTC7s collapse. No fire has ever done that to a building, ever. But another building falling on it would

Smudgeyboy

I can see how debris and the vibration of the other building's demolition (in my opinion) could effect WTC7, but not in the way it happened. No building fell of WTC7

Debris could knock off corners, etc. of the building, and weaken it slightly, remember the scale of the building we're talking about. That's a very slow kind of 'chipping away' at a building if that's the cause.

But that's not how it happened at all...
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=WTC7+collapse&emb=0#

Bang- and it's gone, the same as the other two, on it's own foot print.
This means that whatever was holding this building up (hundreds of steel joins) all got knocked out at the exact same time, and that's impossible with the fire and debris explanation.

Look at it closely, the middle of the building kinks, then it folds in on itself so it doesnt destroy anything around it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo

And then there's the owner saying they decided to 'pull' the building.

Also, if the explanation for the collapse of the twin towers was jet fuel (which doesnt even burn at a high enough temperature to burn through steel) then that means the jet fuel burned through the holding points of steel core structure of the buildings all at once, an amazing thing to happen.

Not only this but on the same day, right beside this outstanding feat of jet fuel, bricks and normal fire did the exact same thing!

"That's unpossible!"

Smudgeyboy

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

Bang- and it's gone, the same as the other two, on it's own foot print.
This means that whatever was holding this building up (hundreds of steel joins) all got knocked out at the exact same time, and that's impossible with the fire and debris explanation.

so you're an engineer then?
Expert in demolitions?

Do you ever critically examine anything you read on the internet or do you accept it as gospel truth from the get go?

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

Also, if the explanation for the collapse of the twin towers was jet fuel (which doesnt even burn at a high enough temperature to burn through steel) then that means the jet fuel burned through the holding points of steel core structure of the buildings all at once, an amazing thing to happen.

Steel loses strength as it heats up, at the temperature of the fire it would have lost half it's strength. The fire didn't need to burn through steel.

Smudgeyboy

King Mob wrote: »

so you're an engineer then?
Expert in demolitions?

Steel loses strength as it heats up, at the temperature of the fire it would have lost half it's strength. The fire didn't need to burn through steel.

No I'm not, I have some basic common knowledge of building and sense, have you any real question regarding what I said?

You have no idea what the basis of my arguement is, for all I know you have only seen that documentary on BBC, you dont hear me demeaning you. This is your excuse for not knowing if I'm right or not, a lack of research.
I find it funny how you go on like this after my stating that insults only come from the afraid.

Why does this seem like a fight over who's right with you rather than trying to find out what is right?

What you said about steel is pretty irrelevant.

If the fire was the cause, which is very unlikely to happen as fires dont collapse buildings, it would lose strength in different parts at different time.
This would cause a much slower fall and most probably not a total collapse.

Climate Expert

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

No I'm not, I have some basic common knowledge of building and sense, have you any real question regarding what I said?

You have no idea what the basis of my arguement is, for all I know you have only seen that documentary on BBC, you dont hear me demeaning you. This is your excuse for not knowing if I'm right or not, a lack of research.
I find it funny how you go on like this after my stating that insults only come from the afraid.

Why does this seem like a fight over who's right with you rather than trying to find out what is right?

What you said about steel is pretty irrelevant.

If the fire was the cause, which is very unlikely to happen as fires dont collapse buildings, it would lose strength in different parts at different time.
This would cause a much slower fall and most probably not a total collapse.

You don't know what you are talking about. You have your common sense and intuition about what should happen. Both can be very misleading especially with something as complex and rare as this event.

Smudgeyboy

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

No I'm not, I have some basic common knowledge of building and sense, have you any real question regarding what I said?

So how do you know the difference between a collaspe and a demolition and that they can't look similar.

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

You have no idea what the basis of my arguement is, for all I know you have only seen that documentary on BBC, you dont hear me demeaning you. This is your excuse for not knowing if I'm right or not, a lack of research.
I find it funny how you go on like this after my stating that insults only come from the afraid.

Oh no not the truth, not the completely illogical baseless and evidence free truth!

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

What you said about steel is pretty irrelevant.

If the fire was the cause, which is very unlikely to happen as fires dont collapse buildings, it would lose strength in different parts at different time.
This would cause a much slower fall and most probably not a total collapse.

At 50% of it strength a beam would no longer be able to hold it's intended load and fail, thus adding to the load of other beams which are also considerably weakened and then those would, and so on until collapse.

Smudgeyboy

You have yet to post a real arguement, that's a very rare occurance your are talking about.

If that is what would happen, it wouldnt all fall at the one time.

This is how all courts work, you look at what happened, look at all evidence available and you make up your mind.

So far, on one side we have a few dodgey explanations from the politicians accused along with some 'debunking' shows backing up what the government said on government sponsored television.

On the other, we have
9/11 as the main accelerator of a very real new world order.
Two dirty wars, and counting
Heightened government power worldwide
Side by side comparison of a controlled demolition of the same type of building. They are identical.
Celebrities coming out saying it was an inside job, and then demonized on corporate media by new world order pushers like Bill O'Reilly on Murdock's Fox news.
BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 early.
The owner of WTC7 saying in interview he got a phone call and they decided to 'pull the building'
a common phrase in the demolition industry.
The smoke coming from the chemical used to cut the steel prior to collapse
The insurance policys taken out before the 'attack'

The reason for the attack was even ridiculous, a very rich man in a cave is jealous of the U.S's freedom? They then use 'The Patriot Act' (incredible name) to take away what's left of American's freedom.

Have you looked in Waco? The 7/7 Bombings? The list of evidence really goes on.


The list goes on as time goes on...

Climate Expert

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

You have yet to post a real arguement, that's a very rare occurance your are talking about.

If that is what would happen, it wouldnt all fall at the one time.

This is how all courts work, you look at what happened, look at all evidence available and you make up your mind.

So far, on one side we have a few dodgey explanations from the politicians accused along with some 'debunking' shows backing up what the government said on government sponsored television.

On the other, we have 9/11 as the main accelerator of a very real new world order.
Two dirty wars, and counting
Heightened government power worldwide
Side by side comparison of a controlled demolition of the same type of building. They are identical.
Celebrities coming out saying it was an inside job.

The list goes on as time goes on...

Again evidence of how this mental illness works. Facts discarded to fit the bigger story. How about all the non-govt. affiliated engineers who have explained the physics behind the collapse?

Smudgeyboy

They are pretty few and far between, far outweighed by the non-govt. affiliated engineers who say it couldnt have happened that way.

Once again an insult coming from someone with nothing else to say.

Climate Expert

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

They are pretty few and far between, far outweighed by the non-govt. affiliated engineers who say it couldnt have happened that way.

Once again an insult coming from someone with nothing else to say.

I can't help if you are insulted by the truth. Its a known psychological disorder and you are blind to the fact that you suffer from it. You sound very like Jim Corr in your posts.

Smudgeyboy

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

This is how all courts work, you look at what happened, look at all evidence available and you make up your mind.

And your evidence is faulty and based on logical fallacies.

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

So far, on one side we have a few dodgey explanations from the politicians accused along with some 'debunking' shows backing up what the government said on government sponsored television.

Politicians aren't expert engineers so i give as much credence to their explanations as yours. I do give credence to people who know what they're talking about.
So is anyone arguing against the conspiracy part of it then?

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

On the other, we have
9/11 as the main accelerator of a very real new world order.
Two dirty wars, and counting
Heightened government power worldwide

Yes this is true but it does not follow that it must have been an inside job.
Non-sequiter and red herring.

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

Side by side comparison of a controlled demolition of the same type of building. They are identical.

What are demonlitions but structural collapses, is possible they can look the same?
Also argument from ignorance

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

Celebrities coming out saying it was an inside job, and then demonized on corporate media by new world order pushers like Bill O'Reilly on Murdock's Fox news.

Argument from authority. Celebrates have no special knowledge and are subject to the same bad reasoning that you use. Bill O'Reilly is a tool.

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 early.
The owner of WTC7 saying in interview he got a phone call and they decided to 'pull the building'
a common phrase in the demolition industry.

Cherry picking. Both these quotes are taken out of context and you know it.
The bbc report the wtc7 had collapsed because of the amount of confusion on the site, and that the firefighter had been saying it was about to collapse.
The "pull it" quote was referring to the operation by fire fighters to save the building. And even if it was refering to a demolition why would he say it to fire fighters?

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

The smoke coming from the chemical used to cut the steel prior to collapse
The insurance policys taken out before the 'attack'

What smoke? What chemical? What insurance policys?
In court you have to back stuff like this up with a little proof.

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

The reason for the attack was even ridiculous, a very rich man in a cave is jealous of the U.S's freedom? They then use 'The Patriot Act' (incredible name) to take away what's left of American's freedom.

Strawman argument argument from personal incredulity and red herring.

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

Have you looked in Waco? The 7/7 Bombings? The list of evidence really goes on.

None of which have anything to do with the collapse of a building. Red herring.

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

The list goes on as time goes on...

The hard you look for conspiracies the more you see.

Smudgeyboy

Ok boys, whatever, watch out for them rich guys in caves America pays, they hate America's capitalism.

Smudgeyboy

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

Ok boys, whatever, watch out for them rich guys in caves America pays, they hate America's capitalism.

Because we live in crippling fear of him every day?
Bet you have tons of proof that he's paid by the US too.