False Flag Terrorism

Lefticus Loonaticus

Inside Job? No Sh1t Sherlock!
Right, lets get down to buisness. In this thread we will be dealing with hypothesises which have holes in them, have yet to be fully proven, or have simply been ignored by the mainstream media and general public. To most people this issue is completely alien, since the TV or the radio has not told them about it, but to those who have been affected, and to those who have dug deep for a bigger picture, its almost a given fact that intelligence agencies(and others perhaps) have been blowing the sh1t out of their own people in order to manipulate them for political ends. While it has happened back in history, this current phase seems to have started with 911 and has continued on since.

Theres more than enough information and evidence at this stage to start building a hypothesis which can be close to the truth, and altho there are some things that will never been known, its just pointless to go demented over what we can and cannot prove. The governments, judicial systems and power stuctures(who are inadventently involved through no fault of their own) are never going to take any evidence seriously anyway, and they are never going to follow up anything because there are incapable of doing it. Thus, by playiing by their rules of trying to amass a case of evidence, we will just be lead down a cul de sac which is where they want us. What they fear the most is that people will actually move beyond the cul de sac and will come to the conclusion that it is indeed true. If people realize that it is true, then the tactic will cease to be effective. If people still believe the official stories, the tactic will continue unabated.

Let us begin with the single biggest problem - the blue pill, the red pill, and the rabbit hole. If any one single incident was to be ousted as an inside job, the whole thing could collapse like a house of cards with disaterous conseqences for those who are really behind it. If 911 was to be accepted by the general population as an inside job, people would begin to slowly fill in the dots. All the other attacks and events would begin to come togather, dot by dot, and in no time at all, people would be faced with the monsterous reality that what they thought was real - really is not at all. I believe that people are willing to accept in some way shape or form that such things do happen, however, when a domono effect is triggered in the mind and the nature of reality is threatened, it just gets blocked out. What im talking about here is the web of lies, so interlinked that when one falls, they all fall.
　
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" - Sherlock Holmes.

Since 911 there have been many terrorist attacks across the planet which have been attributed to an organization called Al-qaeda. This organization is a jihadist movement that knows no limits, no borders and no mercy. It has its roots in afganistan and was harbored by the taliban from about 1989 onwards. An important thing to keep in mind is that the CIA were funding, training and supporting the taliban during the soviet / afgan war. After the war Al-qaeda burst onto the international scene with attacks on a US embassy in solmalia and an attack on a US warship, but it was not until 911 that things began to seem strange.

Let us now go through some of the major attacks associated with al-qaeda that have happened since the war on terror was launched, starting with 9/11.

2001 - 911
No evidence that al-qaeda did it, planted evidence found, video evidence faked, total destruction of crime scenes and evidence, no evidence of an airliner hitting the pentagon or crashing in pensilvania, pentagon cctv taken, fixed and even destroyed, clear evidence of a controlled demolition in wtc 1, 2 and 7 through witnesses, media and videos, mass media complicity in refusing to take a critical look at the official story and potential media colusion, anti terror drills happening at the same time as the real attacks.

2004 - Madrid Bombings
911 days after 9/11(this symbology suggests the two events are linked), same kind of attack - 4 targets, military grade explosives suspected, blasted train wrecks destroyed days later to destroy evidence of kind of explosives used, an attempt to convict patsies, patsies were known police informants with links to spanish bomb squad, outgoing prime minister destroyed related documents, all of the convicted denied involvement, only evidence of al-qaeda involvement was from a shoddy statement, NATOanti terror drills taking place at the same time (or slightly before)as the bombings.

2005 - 7/7
4 targets, military grade explosives suspected, explosions coming from under the tube trains, inconsistent timeline of events with regard to the bombers and trains involved, shoddy cctv/pics of bombers with inconsistent dates on video, clear cctv of bus blast is claimed not to exist, witness evidence of MI5 agents at bus blast, MI5 and government refusing to have a public inquiry, anti terror drills happening at the EXACT SAME TIME using the same scenarios.

If just one of these events(or others like it, such as the bali bombings) were found not to have been committed by al-qaeda or islamic terrorists in general, then we would have to face the reality that perhaps more, or even all of them, were not committed by them either. One must ask the question, if al-qaeda or lslamists did not carry out these attacks, then who did? One must also ask a parallel question, if al-qaeda did do it, then how did they do it? If al-qaeda is indeed the culprit, then they must be aided and abetted in some way by an international group of insiders who are either helping them carry out attacks, or are turning a blind eye at certain moments to ensure that an attack is not intercepted by inteligence agencies. However, let us ask another harder question instead.

Does Al-qaeda as we know it even exist at all?
There are many Islamic extremist groups that do exist as actual organisations. They are based in specific countries and mainly have regional or local political objectives, with a view to achieving these objectives via terrorism. Al-qaeda seems to be different though. It has no known leadership command, is uncoordinated, is worldwide and has the sole objective of basically causing terrorism ad-infinitum with no end in sight. It is the ultimate boogeyman. It cannot be caught or found, it is all-incompassing and it can strike anywhere. In fact, al-qaeda is so widespread and so loose that id say even I could join tommorow if I wanted. I could just drive my car into a crowd while shouting "alah be praised" and I would probably be 'believed to be linked to al-qaeda'.

A very plausable scenario is that al-qaeda may be(to some degree) a figment of our imagination, and that what we see in iraq, afganistan and pakistan is really just a bunch regular people, religious people, insurgents and taliban types who feel they are legitimately defending their countries. Add to this the disgraceful antics of the US military(and NATO and all the rest of the lads aswell) who cause human rights abuses and massacres where ever they go, you can begin to see why there are alot of angry arab people with AKs shooting in the air. Im not saying al-qaeda does not completely exist, but there is good reason to believe that much of what we see is being twisted into a one size fits all 'war on terror' approach, when in actually fact there are many different groups with different agendas and they are all loosely linked to al-qaeda, of which is actually an asset of the global intelligence community.

The point being, yes al-qaeda probably does exist and has a global membership, but its mainly made up of people who are involved in a certain struggle somwhere, or international arabs who feel strongly about whats happening to their people in any number of conflict situations. These people would all be at a low level, such as - on websites talking about jihad / praising terror attacks, perhaps the occasional wannabe terrorist whos a total noob and gets caught by intelligent services, or some guys on the ground in some country fighting against western forces etc etc. The higher levels of al-qaeda would then be both non existent and an illusion, maintained by the global inteligence community to put a face on the supposed enemy for the western populations and also to fool the arab world and different islamic groups into thinking they are involved in some global war.

Al-qaeda is very probably about as true as the tooth fairy. It is a self fulfilling prophecy intentionally fuelled by the consistent murder of arab people and other such abuses that take place in the middle east. Young disaffected muslims from all over the world who watch videos of abu ghraib prison torture will que to join al-qaeda, unbeknown to them that this is indeed the plan. A plan to create a monster and use it as justification for resource invasions and wars.

Who really did it?
Lets get one thing clear first, al-qaeda or any other rag-tag group of lslamists did not spend days setting up explosives inside the wtc buildings in order to bring them down, sombody else did it. But who? And why? And how? To find out let us look at who benefits from such attacks. Certain western governments who need excuses to invade places, intelligence agencies who have agendas, corperations who'll ride along side for the profit, religious fanatics of a christian or jewish persuation who need to project an enemy arab image, arms manufactuers who need a steady supply of war. I'll also include arab extremists (since it would be one sided of me to leave them lads out, but I do not believe they are involved in any meaningful way, especially with regard to the 3 terror attacks listed above which are the subject of this thread).

It could be any of the above, or could any number of them either working in tandem or doing it on their own accord. It could one particular agency manipulating another to cause an attack on one country or it could be some global overarching group that has some degree of manipulation over all agencies.

The common factor with 911, 7/7 and madrid is that the attacks were carried out under the guise of anti terror operations or drills. In the US you had norad flying around chasing phatom planes all day long, in the UK you had Visors emergency management running drills in the EXACT stations where the bombs went off and in Spain you had NATO running drills and also having complete access to madrid with all manor of military hardware at their disposel under the radar of local spainish authorities.

The reason for this is simple. It would be difficult for a government, a military or an intelligence agency to blatantly carry out an attack as they would a normal operation. There would be too many people involved, too many loose ends and too much evidence that might eventually lead back to high level people or groups. Also take into account the majority of people in any given organisation would be good people who would not take lightly to the idea of attacking their own. The best time to strike is when there is already a drill in operation. A small group of people can be involved to manipulate the situation into a real attack, then disapear into the shadows, leaving everyone else behind to pick up the pieces. A government or otherwise people in positions of power will then naturally play along with whatever agenda suits them, the media will blindly follow, and a myth is born. This is precisely what happened on 7/7 and 9/11, but note that it subsequently backfired in the case of the madrid bombings.

Daniel Obachike, a survivor of the tavastock square bus blast on 7/7, has gone public with a shocking incite into what actually happened. He claims the bus was directed to the square by a mercedez and a bmw. Once the bus exploded Daniel exited in roughly ten seconds. In the immediate 60 seconds that followed he saw - a man walking from the opposite direction with fake injuries and a bandaged wrapped around his head, which was impossible since the bus had literally just exploded(an MI5 plant for the camaras), - men filming the scene as if it was a studio(footage that has not surfaced anywhere), - police and agents wearing blue clothes and bags over their shoulders standing around and just watching as if nothing was phasing them. Daniel Obachike is only able to tell this story because he was not hurt or injured and he was so fast off the bus after the blast. Many people behind and around him died or were incapacitated. The people that carried out the bombing were not betting on somone being so quickly aware of their surroundings, a fatal mistake of the operation. His book, 'The Fourth Bomb' details his account of events. He also recieved 7 months surveillance by inteligence officers for telling the truth of what he saw.

Assuming Daniel Obachike is telling the truth, it is apparent that MI5 were clearly involved in a big way. They knew when it was going to go off and they were ready for it. From this we can also circumstantially assume they planted it. Lets now also assume that a similar situation was happening with 9/11 and the Madrid bombings. A certain 3 letter agency in the US, perhaps the CIA or somone else, and Spainish inteligence services, both highly involved in their respective attacks. Now lets look at the bigger picture regarding these 3 events. America, Britain and Spain causing self inflicted wounds to their own people, with the objective being to manipulate public opinion and government policy toward the middle east. 9/11 was enough justification to attack Iraq and Afganistan, while 7/7 helped secure further british involvement in the war on terror. The Madrid bombings however, came off with different consequences. The spanish government apparantly made a balls of it by blaming ETA, lost a general election shortly afterwards to the socialist party, which then withdrew its troops from iraq.

Lets look closer at the spanish scenario for a second. Could this have been a failed false flag? Al-qaeda supposedly claimed it was responsible, and in a later statement said they had won against the spanish government. The spanish voters, in their wisdom perhaps, could have ousted the ruling government because of the bombings and the surrounding political circumstances. Maybe they were a smart electorate that saw things for what they were? As a result, it could very well be that the incoming spanish government knew exactly what had happened and pulled out of iraq as a message to the real bombers that spain will not be bullied by such events. The official version of events will still say that spain was bombed out of iraq, but the truth of it may be quite the opposite. The madrid bombings are still a widely debated topic in spain. The mainstream media over there is divided about who is responsible, which is in direct contrast to the situation in the US and UK, where it is considered heresy to counter the official story.

Given that intelligence agencies were most likely involved in some way with these 3 terror attacks, potentially even carrying them out themselves, we must now ask the question, is this all coordinated on an international level? Or, are they acting on their own accord, but still mutually playing into the same general theme of islamic terrorism? I dont know the answer to that im afraid, but heres my 2 cent. If it is coordinated, then there must be a group within each of them that are involved in some international group. If such a group does indeed exist, then it would have to be a very powerful organisation in order to have command and control over multiple substantial agencies across different countries. What kind of organisation would this be? It could be a sub group within NATO, or it could also be a very powerfull intelligence agency that has managed to take over smaller and weaker ones. The CIA, Mossad and MI5 would be your best bets in terms of motive. Mossad would have certain geopolitical issues which would benefit massively from the west attacking arab countries, but when you think about, everyone would seem to have some interest or another. Perhaps I am reading too far between the lines and that its really much less complicated, such as governments having alliances, maybe intelligence agencies have alliances aswell. Maybe one of them did 9/11 and all the rest jumped on the bandwagon and tried to copy it. Whatever the actual truth may be, it appears that some of the worst terrorist atrocities of our time have not been done by some crazy ass arab in a cave in afganistan, but have been perpetrated by those who are paid to protect us.

Given the substantial suspicions and mounting evidence of many of these so called terrorist attacks, it is likely that any future attacks on western countries in particular will be viewed in a similar light and will no doubt throw up more incriminating evidence pointing towards government, military or intelligence agency involvement in some form or another.

The victims of these inside jobs, and the countless numbers murdered in the middle east as a result, deserve to have the truth told so that in the future such horror, manipulation and warmongering can be avoided by public awareness of what has really happened over the last ten years. I had the unpleasant task of having to phone a relative in london on 7/7 to find out if he was ok. It turned out he was fine, lucky for him. Not so lucky for 52 other people who got their arms and legs blown off.

Future such attacks of an inside job variety can only be prevented when public awareness of the problem renders the tactic useless. What hope is there to deal with actual terrorism and global conflicts when even worse terrorism and conflicts are potentially being caused by publicly funded western agencies?

Its also a problem which is closer to home than most people realise. Perhaps if the Irish government would release the files regarding the dublin and monahan bombings, we would see that they bare striking similarities to other such attacks, and may even be believed to be linked to al-qaeda;).

BrerWolf

Yawn

Brown Bomber

BrerWolf wrote: »

Yawn

Yawn?...What's the problem, not got the attention span to read more than two paragraphs? Have you any idea how long that would take to write? Such an infuriatingly ignorant comment. If you don't want to read it then you know what you should do.

OP I'm sure you've made a whole host of interesting points and I look forward to reading as soon as I get a chance.

Di0genes

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

2001 - 911
No evidence that al-qaeda did it,

Aside from they admitted it. Martyrdom videos and so forth.

planted evidence found,

Source.

video evidence faked,

Source.

total destruction of crime scenes and evidence,

Well having some skyscrapers fall on you will do that.

no evidence of an airliner hitting the pentagon

again from the JREF

You really need to list them because all of the evidence points to one thing. A 757, identified as American Airlines flight 77 took off from Dulles at 8:20am from gate D26. We have the hand-written statements from the air traffic controllers who handled the plane from taxi to take-off, backed up by the real-time audio for them.

The plane was lost to air traffic controllers (transponder turned off) in the vicinity of the Ohio/KY/WV border. We have their statements and audio as well. Although not visible on ATC screens, we have unbroken radar coverage of that plane from a number of Air Route Surveillance Radars (ARSR) along the way back to the Dulles area where it was again picked up by Dulles controllers. They brought it to Reagan air controllers attention who tracked it all the way to the Pentagon on their radar. We have data from four local Approach Control Radars and two ARSR's to support that. We have their statements and real-time audio.

Reagan diverted a C-130 to identify and track the aircraft, which the pilot (real-time audio) identified as a 757. It was then picked up by two Arlington County Police Officers and we have their identification on the ACPD dispatch audio (American Airlines). They watch the plane descend into the Pentagon area, where it is picked up by approximately 100 documented eyewitnesses who saw the plane go into the Pentagon.

Not one iota of data to support that it was a cruise missile. Not one eyewitness or other data (radar, air traffic controller, pilot of other planes in the area, etc) to indicate that the plane went past the Pentagon.

Yes, some amateur sleuths cherry-picked some eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, but made the error of using only witnesses from the north side of the path. This naturally skewed the path to the north in their area. They did something similar to the west of the Sheraton and skewed the path south in that area. That is what happens when you cherry-pick witnesses. However, normal population behavior with results based on location of the witnesses rather than the location of the plane. Even with this abnormal witness set, they all agree the plane impacted the Pentagon.

The physical damage at the Pentagon is consistent with such an impact, and the debris field corresponds to the angular impact. The debris cloud is captured on radar by the DCA ASR, and it too is consistent with the angular impact and wind patterns. Location of body part (yes, parts, not bodies) recovery is also consistent with the impact and angular impact (human flesh found by the gate house which took the infamous video footage).

So if you have strong evidence for anything other than flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, I would sure like to hear it because after 5 years of research, I sure have not seen it.

or crashing in pensilvania,

Eye witnesses to the crash

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1

In Addition

At Shanksville, which was by far the smallest of the three 9/11 crash scenes, over 1,100 people from 74 agencies and organizations worked at the scene. Including civilian volunteers, many of whom joined an organized effort to collect aircraft parts, the number of crash scene workers reaches well over 1,500.

On 9/11 alone, these included: • 8 Police Departments • 7 EMS Services • 8 Fire Departments • 10 Emergency Management Agencies • NTSB • ATF • FBI • CISM • Red Cross • United Airlines Source: PowerPoint presentation by Rick Lohr, Director of the Somerset County Emergency Management Agency. Download it here as a PDF (numerous photos, several shown on these pages)

Volunteer first responders on 9/11 included:

Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company, Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company, Central City Fire Department, Berlin Fire Department, Friedens Volunteer Fire Department, Listie Volunteer Fire Company, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department, Somerset Ambulance Association, Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department, and the Hooversville Rescue Squad.
"Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company Assistant Fire Chief Rick King and three firefighters were the first responders on the scene with an engine and a tanker. Shanksville Fire Chief Terry Shaffer also responded from 10 minutes away.

While enroute to the scene, there was a concern for the potential of large numbers of casualties. Chief Shaffer requested additional ambulances and EMS units dispatched to the scene. Two ambulances from outside the county were also alerted but were placed in service while responding. Upon arrival, firefighters found small pieces of the plane, spot fires, and a large quantity of fuel scattered across a wide debris field. A quick survey of the scene found no survivors. Additional resources were requested from County Control, which included additional suppression companies and the Somerset Fire Company’s hazardous materials team. Federal authorities, including the FBI and NTSB, arrived relatively quickly to secure the site and begin the evidence collection and body recovery process.

...Members of the Shanksville and Stoystown departments spent about 1500 hours at the crash site. (Source: "The Role of the Volunteer Fire Service in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks" pp 58-60. PDF)

"We think it is fascinating that all these people from across the United States want to see the crash site. It is interesting to talk with them," said King. ...When King and his crew arrived, they saw what smoking pieces remained of the plane. “There were small pieces everywhere and small signs of human remains. It was total destruction.” Source

"After calling for backup from several area fire companies, King and the other firefighters, who had never responded to an airplane crash, surveyed the scene. None of them was prepared for what they saw. King recalls the paper strewn in the trees and clothing and shoes scattered on the ground. There were no bodies, he says. Just body parts. 'That's when the sheer destruction of the crash really hit home,' he says." Source (pdf)

Excerpts from "Courage After the Crash: Flight 93" by Glenn J. Kashurba. SAJ Publishing, 2002.

King: "We stopped and I opened the door. The smell of jet fuel was overpowering. I will never forget that smell; it is really burnt into my mind. ...I walked down the power line and got my first glimpse of human remains. Then I walked a little further and saw more."

Shanksville VFD firefighter Keith Curtis: "I walked up to where the tire was on fire, probably a hundred feet past the crater. It was a big tire. I was thinking that this is a big jet. I hit it good with the hose and put it out. I stopped and 'poof,' it just started on fire again."

Firefighter Mike Sube: "We made our way to a small pond. That's where I observed the largest piece of wreckage that I saw, a portion of the landing gear and fuselage. One of the tires was still intact with the bracket, and probably about three to five windows of the fuselage were actually in one piece lying there. ...There were enough fires that our brush truck was down there numerous times. ...I saw small pieces of human remains and occasionally some larger pieces. That was disturbing, but what was most disturbing was seeing personal effects."

Lieutenant Roger Bailey, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department: "We started down through the debris field. I saw pieces of fiberglass, pieces of airplane, pop rivets, and mail...Mail was scattered everywhere. ...the one guy who was with us almost stepped on a piece of human remains. I grabbed him, and he got about half woozy over it."

[People who were early to the scene didn't know what to expect. While some people were impressed by how small the crater was, others were impressed by how large it was.] Reporter Jon Meyer, WJAC-TV, Johnstown: "There was a spot at the end where the emergency crews were gathering. I could see that it was smoking and burning a little bit. So I ran as fast as I could towards that spot. I ran right up to the crater. I was standing a few feet away, looking down into it. I was overwhelmed by the crater's depth and size, but there was nothing that I could identify as having been an airplane, except that there was this incredibly strong smell of jet fuel."

Gerry Parry, Berlin Volunteer Fire Department: "I stopped and talked to the custodian, Don Stutzman. He and a teacher, Mike Sheeler, and I were standing in the corner of the parking lot when we felt and heard the explosion. If I had been turned the other direction, I might have seen it go down. We saw the smoke immediately. ...It felt too large to be a strip mine explosion, and usually, we have some idea when they are going to happen."

Bill Baker, Somerset County Emergency Management Agency: "There was debris everywhere. You couldn't step without walking on a piece of plane part, fabric, or some kind of debris. When they said it was a 757, I looked out across the debris field. I said, "There is no way there is a 757 scattered here. At that time, we didn't know that it was in the hole. The jet fuel smell was really strong...There were plane parts hanging in the trees."

Are the Shanksville and Stoystown Volunteer Fire Department part of the conspiracy? Lefty?

pentagon cctv taken, fixed and even destroyed,

Of course it was taken you do that with the evidence at a crime scene. Where's your proof it was fixed or even destroyed?

clear evidence of a controlled demolition in wtc 1, 2 and 7 through witnesses, media and videos,

Sources please.

mass media complicity in refusing to take a critical look at the official story and potential media colusion, anti terror drills happening at the same time as the real attacks.

Again Sources please.

2005 - 7/7

4 targets, military grade explosives suspected,

Source

explosions coming from under the tube trains,

No

Conspiracy explained here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jun/27/july7.uksecurity

inconsistent timeline of events with regard to the bombers and trains involved,

British rail service in incompetence shocker!

shoddy cctv/pics of bombers with inconsistent dates on video,

CCTV in 2005 is timelapse video and recorded onto VHS. And because it came from multiple sources of course there will be inconsistencies in date and time stamp.

clear cctv of bus blast is claimed not to exist,

Thats entirely plausible.

witness evidence of MI5 agents at bus blast,

1 Witness and it's extremely unlikely daniel was on the bus.

I've lived in London, and Daniel's claims about the routine that he took that day are incredibly specious.

MI5 and government refusing to have a public inquiry, anti terror drills happening at the EXACT SAME TIME using the same scenarios.

Disingenuous


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2v06...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pohS...eature=related

If just one of these events(or others like it, such as the bali bombings) were found not to have been committed by al-qaeda or islamic terrorists in general, then we would have to face the reality that perhaps more, or even all of them, were not committed by them either.

Alternatively if these events have been carried out by Islamic Terrorists the entire premise of your argument fails.

Assuming Daniel Obachike is telling the truth,

I don't think he was on the bus.

In his book, Obachike implies that his usual route to work that week involved walking from his home to Enfield Town railway station, catching the 08:27 train to Liverpool Street station, then changing to the London Underground to complete the journey to his office at Old Street. Logically this would mean taking a Circle/Metropolitan/Hammersmith & City line train to Moorgate station, then changing to the northbound Northern line to go one stop to Old Street station. Obachike says that this would get him to his desk before, "the petulant manager came a-hovering minutes after 9" (p. 5).

On 7 July, however, he missed the 08:27 train, and so had to get the next one, but en route he changed to the Victoria line at Seven Sisters station (six stops after Enfield Town, and eight before Liverpool Street) for no adequately explained reason. The logical alternative route would have been him taking the Victoria line all the way to King's Cross station, before changing to the southbound Northern Line two stops to Old Street station. He says, "a glance at his watch told him it was almost 9 o'clock" (p. 10) as they approached King's Cross/St Pancras, but it was announced that the station was closed, so the train passed through without stopping. Once at Euston, he states that the train doors remained open for "minutes," then "another 5 minutes later passenger's frustrations began to tell," before most progressively began to leave, himself included, their exit slowed due to the power to the escalators to the mainline surface station being off. From personal familiarity with the station layout at Euston, it is hard to accept that someone could reached the surface in less than ten minutes under these circumstances. At the very least, then, it would have at least 18 minutes between the arrival of the train and Obachike reaching the surface, which he claims he actually did by 09:06. He then spent a further 25 minutes milling around with other displaced communters, before eventually boarding the No. 30 bus and departing at 09:31.

There are a number of problems with both his claimed usual route, and the one he says he actually took on the day. In the first instance, in July 2005 the 08:27 from Enfield Town was not timetabled to arrive at Liverpool Street until 09:04, so with another ten minutes to get to Old Street by Underground, it's hard to see how Obachike could have been at his desk by 09:20, let alone "minutes after 9."

As he actually missed the 08:27, the next train was not until 08:49, arriving at Liverpool Street at 09:26. It would have arrived at Seven Sisters 1-to-3 minutes before it was timetabled to leave there at 09:03, but then taken him around four minutes to change to the Underground, and another 10 minutes to get from there to King's Cross, so he could not have been approaching that station at "almost 9 o'clock." Even with trains non-stopping at King's Cross, he could not have reached Euston until around 09:16-09:18, assuming that he got straight onto an immediately departing Victoria line train at Seven Sisters, meaning he could not have been on the Euston mainline concourse until 09:34-09:36, after the No. 30 had departed, never mind allowing his 25 minutes elapsing before that happened.

This all assumes that Obachike took the route he says he did. As noted, he claims he walked from his home to Enfield Town station, which is a distance of about 460 metres, to take a 37 minute train to Liverpool Street, followed by a further Underground journey with an additional change to Old Street. In the oppose direction, 880 metres away from Obachike's home, is Enfield Chase station, from which he could take a 24 minute train on a different line direct to Old Street. In July 2005 the timetabled departures and arrivals at Enfield Chase and Old Street were respectively:

08:17 - 08:45
08:27 - 08:52
08:34 - 08:58
08:39 - 09:04
08:58 - 09:24
09:02 - 09:28

The only Enfield Town to Liverpool Street services in the same timeframe were:

08:12 - 08:47
08:27 - 09:04
08:49 - 09:26
09:04 - 09:38

All the issues of whether Obachike's described route could actually get him to Euston in time to be on the No. 30 bus aside, it does not seem credible that that for the sake of not walking an additional 420 metres, he would make a more complex journey (i.e. three changes rather than none) that would take at least 22 minutes longer every single day, let alone one on which he was already running late. Ironically, elsewhere in his book Obachike actually makes the point that savvy commuters, "naturally opt for (the) quickest and most straightforward journey" (p.123).

Historic timetables:

Enfield CHase to Old Street

Enfield Town to Liverpool Street

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=157202&highlight=Daniel+Obachike

And on the Russell Square footage which he claims shows all these Mi5 agents?

Do you know what you don't see a single frame of?

Daniel Obachike .

He's not in the footage.

If just one of these events(or others like it, such as the bali bombings) were found not to have been committed by al-qaeda or islamic terrorists in general, then we would have to face the reality that perhaps more, or even all of them, were not committed by them either. One must ask the question, if al-qaeda or lslamists did not carry out these attacks, then who did? One must also ask a parallel question, if al-qaeda did do it, then how did they do it? If al-qaeda is indeed the culprit, then they must be aided and abetted in some way by an international group of insiders who are either helping them carry out attacks, or are turning a blind eye at certain moments to ensure that an attack is not intercepted by inteligence agencies. However, let us ask another harder question instead.

And if we reject that premise we can ignore your theorising.

Lefticus Loonaticus

@Di0genes


Al qaeda admit alot of things, I dont think they had the ability to destroy those buildings sorry. Building 7 was clearly suppose to be hit by that third plane that never made it, the one that was supposed to crash in pensilvania. I contest its existence because I have never seen evidence of it, altho I do think maybe it could have been pulverized by the airforce after they were given a shoot down order. Too bad wtc 7 was still rigged to blow so it didnt really matter if the 3rd plane made it or not.

There was a passport of one of the so called hijackers found in the rubble of the wtc. It survived the plane crash into the building, the explosion, the fire ball, the raging inferno and the controlled demolition. I seriously doubt it dude, it was planted evidence. Aswell as that passport of that saudi guy who found out on the news that he was one of the hi jackers, lol, I wonder did they give his passport back to him in the end.

The video of Osama talking about 911 is fake. Its a person thats does not look like Osama Bin Laden and this person is also right handed. Osama is left handed. Its a fake video.

After the buildings were brought down, the ruins were transported away by trucks and no one ever got to do any investigations. Altho i think later some of the stuff was recovered and traces of thermite were found.
There is no evidence of an airliner hitting the pentagon apart from a few people who are clearly plants. If they want to prove the pentagon was really hit by that plane, then all they have to do is release the clear cctv footage from the pentagon and the footage from the hotel across the highway which will both clearly show what happened. Instead they release fake bullsh1t frames of some white smoke. Bullsh1t with a capital B.

Dont ask me for links about evidence of controlled demolitions, please, its done and dusted at this stage. Maybe your right tho, maybe al-qaeda prayed to allah for the buildings to randomly collapse, but I doubt it.

Media collusion? Why dont the mainstream media investigate all the bull****? How did the BBC know wtc 7 was about to be blown up? They annouced it before it happened on live TV then had to cut the feed because it was about to happen behind them live on air. Watch it on youtube.

I aint linking anything, I want this to be a free flowing non link-a-thon, if possible. People know how to type stuff in google, they can do it for themselves.

Yes, it does appear that bombs were planted under the tube trains on 7/7, many people reported the floors blowing upwards and the twisted metal coming up and killing people. No photos have been seen to prove otherwise, but then many people died there so they dont want to show them.

The 4 bombers may have been shot dead at canary wharf in a seperate incident, but were later blamed as patsies.

Its not disingenuous about the non public inquiry, its true that they wont hold one because of national security issues, of which we all know means somone is full of sh1t and that MI5 or who ever else want to avoid at all cost having to answer serious questions about what happened that day.

Ill get back to you about the cctv timeline, im weak on that one im afraid. Its still ridiculous that some how the most CCTVed place in the world only got a gammy shot of the supposed bombers and at the wrong time aswell. I'd have to say that thats fake aswell im afraid. If it was decent footage from multiple camaras I would consider it.

If you dont think Daniel was on the bus, no problem, One thing to keep in mind tho, if he was on the bus and is telling the truth, then he will be attacked and slurred like no one has ever been slurred before. Ill be mildy cautious of his claims, yes, but I would also be cautious of those who pick him out specifically for criticism.

Google or youtube '7/7 the bandaged man', you will get a nice view of that plant and a couple of other agents that are looking after him.

Talk E

Just a few more false flags.





History of
American False Flag Operations

The leaders of smaller and less industrialised nations are not madmen (whatever the media claims). They also are generally better informed than their citizens. In a war an attacker does not need equal forces compared to the enemy. The attacker needs a 5-fold local superiority, or better. No one begins wars without very definite objectives and a quick victory in sight. If a war with more even military balance erupts, someone has been mislead and walked into a trap (usually arranged by third party).
After the American war of Independence (1776-1779), and an English challenge to that independence (1812-1814) no single nation has planned an offensive war against the USA. It is probable that a strong coalition of Anglo-French-led European nations planned to split the USA into two states through diplomatic recognition of the Confederate states possibly followed up by naval blockade embargoing the Union. At that time the British Empire was the strongest naval power, and the French the second strongest. The events led, however, into the Civil War (1860-1865) and due to the Russian intervention 1863 (1863) on the Union's side, those European plans were quietly abandoned.





Mexican wars 1819, 1846-48: Long series of operations, commencing with the annexion of Florida (1819) and followed by a declaration of independence of Texas from Mexico (1836). Provocative troop movements near the U.S. southern border caused an incident which led to war. (It is said the US built a fortification 150 km inside the Mexican border.) The annexation of Texas by the USA and the conquest of California, New Mexico, and nearby territories followed. Mexico had a weak government at that time, because after Napoleon conquered Spain (1809) their former colonies soon revolted. Mexico had been a colony of the Spanish kingdom but now they revolted and formed a republic. There were a series of revolts, not just one.





Spanish-American war, 1898: The surprise explosion of the battleship Maine at Havana, Cuba. 255 of the crew died. The Hearst press accused the Spanish, claiming that the explosion was caused by a remote-controlled mine. The USA declared war on Spain, and conquered Philippines, Guam and Cuba. Subsequent investigations revealed that the explosion originated inside the Maine and that it was either an accident, such as a coal explosion, or some type of time bomb inside the battleship. Divers investigating the shipwreck found that the armour plates of the ship were blown bending outwards, not inwards.





World War I, 1914-1918: A U-boat torpedo hit ocean liner Lusitania near Britain and some 1200 people, including 128 Americans, on board lost their lives. Subsequent investigations revealed that the major explosions were inside the Lusitania, as it was secretly transporting 6 million pounds of artillery shells and rifle ammunition, as well as other explosives on behalf of Morgan banking corporation to help their clients, the Britain and the France. It was against US laws to transport war materials and passengers in the same ship.





World War 2, 1939-1945: A U-boat torpedo hit the ocean liner Athenia near Britain with some 1100 passengers, of which 311 were Americans. The sea was calm and only 118 people on board lost their lives. The ship was sunk because it behaved like a military transport, blackened out and zigzagging. This incident wasn't enough to precipitate war, and the Germans also refused to be provoked by several American acts of war. Americans confiscated German merchant ships, and Americans started to support the British with various lend-lease items, US volunteer pilots joined the RAF and some RAF pilots were trained in the US, US gave the British 50 old but usable WW1 destroyers and 20 modern torpedo boats, tanks, light bombers, fighter aircraft like P-40s and so on. American destroyers also escorted the convoys bound to Britain, and attacked German U-boats even far away from those convoys. The US did not maintain a neutral stance attitude towards the warring nations.
The US naval intelligence, chief of Japan desk planned and suggested "8 insults", which should bring Japan into war with the US. President Roosevelt executed this plan immediately and also added some other insults, enraging the Japan. The most serious one was a total blockade of Japanese oil imports, as agreed between the Americans, British and the Dutch. FDR also declared an all-out embargo against the Japan and forbade them the use of Panama canal, impeding Japan's access to Venezuelan oil.
The Flying Tigers volunteer air group successfully fighting the Japanese in China with some 90 fairly modern P-40Bs was another effective provocation that is not generally acknowledged by historical accounts of World War 2, most of which fail to mention any air combat action prior to 7th December 1941. But at that time the Japanese had already had lost about 100 military aircraft, mostly bombers, to the Tigers. After Pearl Harbor these squadrons were some of the the hardest-hitting ones in the US service.
The attack on Pearl Harbour followed some 6 months later. Having broken the Japanese encryption codes, the Americans knew what was going to happen, when and where, but the president did not dispatch this information to Pearl Harbor. Americans even gave their friends the British 3 Magic decrypting machines which automatically opened encrypted Japanese military traffic. But this same information was not available to the commanders of Hawaii. The movement of the fleet was also visible in the very effective radio direction finding network. Japan had an alliance with Germany, and the Germans upheld their promises by declaring the war against the USA right after the Japanese declaration.
Two scapegoats, the navy commander Admiral Husband Kimmel, and the army commander Lt. General Walter Short were found incompetent and demoted as they were allowed to retire. Short died 1949 and Kimmel 1958. In 1995, the US Congress re-examined this decision and endorsed it. Then in 2000 some archive information came to light and the US Senate passed a resolution stating that both had served in Hawaii "competently and professionally". In 1941 they were denied vital information, and even on presidential orders purposefully mislead into believing that the Japanese feet could be expected from the southwest. These commanders have yet to be rehabilited by the Pentagon.





Korean War, 1950-1953: South Korean incursions (the Tiger regiment etc.) into North Korea (1949) led to contrary claims and into war. The cause of this war propably was covert action involving leaders of Taiwan, South Korea and the US military-industrial complex (John Foster Dulles has been mentioned as an organizer of the hostilities.) After the unpublished hostilities in 1949, the communist powers were strongly backing North Korea.
Chiang Kai Sek was being abandoned, isolated and falling prey to the powerful communist Chinese operations. The right-wing South Korean ruler was expected to loose the soon-to-be-elections. The American military-industrial complex went into high gear again, and huge government orders for equipment were flowing in.
The American-led UN forces had difficult times early in the war, but after sufficient forces arrived they advanced victoriously and penetrated deep into the North Korea. The strong Chino-Russian intervention into the war once again turned the tides, the Chinese with vast armies on ground, and the Soviets less visibly with large numbers of aircraft, nearly costing the UN forces the war.
Finally the front stabilised along the original 38th parallel armistice line. The war resulted in the death of 3 million Korean Chinese and the destruction of virtually all of the Korean cities, and left Taiwan in strong American protection and South Korea firmly in the hands of the right-wing president Syngman Rhee. Some 55,000 Americans lost their lives.





Vietnam War: "The Tonkin incident", where American destroyer Maddox was supposedly attacked twice by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. What was happening at the time were aggressive South Vietnamese raids against the North in the same general area. Huge American presence wasn't decisive and President Nixon negotiated a "peace with honour" in 1973. This war was lost, when North Vietnam finally conquered South Vietnam in 1975.





Grenada invasion: The Grenadian leader, Maurice Bishop, favouring the left and having invited Cubans to help build the infrastructure including by extending the airport to accomodate long range Soviet aircraft, was deposed and executed in October 19, 1983. Six days later the US invaded, with the proffered reason that the American medical students studying in the Grenada were in danger due the Cuban presence. The new leader supported by the US favoured more traditional values and the right.





War on Drugs: The war was launched by Richard M Nixon sometime around June 17,1971. The drug problem was found bad within the army in Viet Nam around 1968 prompting action was required towards the end of the war. Nowadays it is estimated that the military will never win the War on Drugs. The street prices of illicit drugs did not change significantly in the USA despite the military action in foreign drug-producing countries. The Colombian experience, with local military supported by the US, has shown that peace is more important than war against drugs. The Colombians have successfully negotiated some 1000s of guerrilla fighters back into the society and out of jungle.
This "war" actually seems to be a pretext for military invasions into less developed countries, where covert "bad" drug lords on behalf of western intelligence services are producing drugs into US and first world markets. This operation produces huge incomes, generating black budget money for those intelligence services managing the global drug operations.





Panama invasion: The incident between American and Panamanian troops led to invasion. The leader Noriega was changed and the earlier Carter administration plan to hand control of the canal over to Panama was cancelled. The strategic importance of the canal has surpassed any more just thinking in the US global domination policy.





US-Israeli sponsored war between Iraq and Iran, 1980-1988: The US has built power bases in the Middle East in Iran starting with the CIA-organised coup 1953, where Iranian prime minister Mossadeq was replaced with the Shah of Iran Reza Pahlavi and he by his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Iran was equipped with the best western military equipment, including the American F-14 fighters with Phoenix missiles and the British Chieftain MBTs. Unfortunately there was in 1979 a coup of ayatollah Khomeini replacing the Shah and founding an Islamite nation.
After this, the US warmed up relations with their good Iraqi friend Saddam Hussein, and started to build a nation capable of challenging the Iran. Iraq acquired large numbers of effective weapons including factories able to produce older versions of gas warfare agents. These would later be called WMDs, which of course they were not, being the WW1-vintage weapons.
The war broke out and was fought to exhaustion because third-party powers, especially Israel, were carefully monitoring the power balance supplying more weapons to the side which seemed to be loosing. "Too bad they both cannot loose" is how Kissinger evaluated this situation.





Desert Storm (First Gulf war), 1991): Hussein asked for permission from the US (via their ambassador April Gillespie) and got an answer that the US does not care Arab quarrels. That was a trap, and after Saddam occupied Kuwait, George Bush Sr. mobilised a coalition of some 40 nations to "liberate Kuwait" and to smash the recently-built Iraqi military power base. This also involved a media hoax, where the daughter of Kuwaiti US ambassador played nurse on TV and testified to "witnessing" Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait.


War on Terror: The war was launched by Bush administration October 2001. The war was claimed to be the response on terrorism, especially the 9-11 incidents. Most of the people in the world today know that these reasons are false and that those events were based on MIH type (make it happen) inside job.





Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan invasion), 7.10.2001-: Without any evidence, the former CIA-asset, a Saudi-Arabian Osama bin Laden was claimed to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 strikes at the WTC and the Pentagon. Such a complex operation, if actually executed which it was not, in this case would be much beyond the capabilities of anything in Afghanistan. Only some top ten intelligence services in the world could hope to be successful in such an operation involving forgery, infiltration, living "underground" in a foreign non-Muslim country, coordination of moves, illegal arms, hi-quality flight training, accurate aircraft navigation in no-visibility conditions and so on. Perhaps even less, because the friends of the US (at that time, still most of the world) would also have been interested in stopping the attack.




Enduring Justice (Second Gulf war), 20.3.2003-: later known with less irony as Operation Iraqi Freedom The claimed reason of the attack was that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the US with wmd's available within less than an hour after the decision to assemble them has been made. Since no wmd's were found, and after the Iraqi also scrapped some 800 long range Scud style missiles before the US coalition attack, the reason for the invasion was changed into "bringing the democracy into Iraq".

Di0genes

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

@Di0genes


Al qaeda admit alot of things, I dont think they had the ability to destroy those buildings sorry.

Flying passengers planes into buildings will do that.

Building 7 was clearly suppose to be hit by that third plane that never made it,

Building 7 was hit by debris from the WTC 1&2 and had fires consuming it totally burning all day.

the one that was supposed to crash in pensilvania. I contest its existence because I have never seen evidence of it, altho I do think maybe it could have been pulverized by the airforce after they were given a shoot down order.

In correct and if you bothered to read the plethora of links I had the courtesy to provide you'd see that dozens of people saw the plane crash into the ground and wasn't shot down.

Too bad wtc 7 was still rigged to blow so it didnt really matter if the 3rd plane made it or not.

A half dozen buildings in the WTC complex were also so incredibly damaged they later needed to be demolished. WTC 7 was just the worst damaged building.

Why would terrorists crash a plane into the WTC 7?

There was a passport of one of the so called hijackers found in the rubble of the wtc. It survived the plane crash into the building, the explosion, the fire ball, the raging inferno and the controlled demolition. I seriously doubt it dude, it was planted evidence. Aswell as that passport of that saudi guy who found out on the news that he was one of the hi jackers, lol, I wonder did they give his passport back to him in the end.

Personal effects from several passengers from the plane, including letters

"Orange County, CA., Sept. 11 - Lisa Anne Frost was 22 and had just graduated from Boston University in May 2001 with two degrees and multiple academic and service honors. She had worked all summer in Boston before coming home, finally, to California to start her new life. The Rancho Santa Margarita woman was on United Flight 175 on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when it became the second plane to slam into the World Trade Center...

Her parents, Tom and Melanie Frost, have spent two years knowing they will never understand why.

A few days before the first anniversary of our daughter's murder, we were notified that they had found a piece of her in the piles and piles of gritty rubble of the World Trade Center that had been hauled out to Staten Island. It was Lisa's way, we believe, of telling us she wasn't lost.

In February, the day of the Columbia tragedy, we got word they'd found her United Airlines Mileage Plus card. It was found very near where they'd found a piece of her right hip. We imagine that she used the card early on the morning of Sept. 11 to get on the plane and just stuck it in her back pocket, probably her right back pocket, instead of in her purse. They have found no other personal effects".

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:tI2PQRqfJiIJ:www.msnbc.com/local/MYOC/M324557.asp

On Oct. 12, it arrived inside a second envelope at Mrs. Snyder's modest white house on Main Street here, and the instant she took it out and saw it, she says, ''chills just went over me.'' It was singed and crumpled. A chunk was ripped out, giving the bottom of the envelope she had sent the look of a jagged skyline. Mrs. Snyder's lyrical script had blurred into the scorched paper. The stamp, depicting a World War II sailor embracing a woman welcoming him home, was intact.

Along with the letter was a note: ''To whom it may concern. This was found floating around the street in downtown New York. I am sorry if you suffered any loss in this tragedy. Sincerely, a friend in New York!''

Since then, Mrs. Snyder, a customer service representative at a grocery store, has discovered that she has one of only two pieces of mail known to have been recovered from the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. At least one auction house has contacted her, saying she could sell the letter for tens of thousands of dollars.

One Letter's Odyssey Helps Mend a Wound

Your argument about the passport is what is referred to as a argument of incredulity Because you cannot believe a alternative theory, the passport must have been faked.

Its a tenuous argument and incredibly specious.

The video of Osama talking about 911 is fake. Its a person thats does not look like Osama Bin Laden and this person is also right handed. Osama is left handed. Its a fake video.

Incorrect.

http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_right_handed_.html

Muslims believe that the left hand is unclean, and if Bin Laden was left handed his schooling would teach him to be right handed.

After the buildings were brought down, the ruins were transported away by trucks and no one ever got to do any investigations. Altho i think later some of the stuff was recovered and traces of thermite were found.

Both these claims are false and please do me the courtesy of reading through the forum as these have been dealt with extensively already.

There is no evidence of an airliner hitting the pentagon apart from a few people who are clearly plants.

Now you're going to annoy me.

Pentagon witness spreadsheet (Excel file)

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

Are you calling 136 people liars and plants?


Oh and the following agencies worked on the Pentagon crash site. Are all these people liars too?

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police

If they want to prove the pentagon was really hit by that plane, then all they have to do is release the clear cctv footage from the pentagon and the footage from the hotel across the highway which will both clearly show what happened. Instead they release fake bullsh1t frames of some white smoke. Bullsh1t with a capital B.

Simple question? Why would a hotel across the high way have 29.97fps CCTV footage of a wide angle shot across the pentagon.

Do you know how CCTV works?

Incidentally this this the flight path of the plane



It flew so low over a 8 lane highway it clipped lamposts....Thats right look up. lamposts...on both sides of the road. Only something with the the wingspan of a 767 can do that.

Dont ask me for links about evidence of controlled demolitions, please, its done and dusted at this stage.

No I will. Because every claim about a controlled demolition has been brought up on this forum, and been thoroughly found lacking.

Maybe your right tho, maybe al-qaeda prayed to allah for the buildings to randomly collapse, but I doubt it.

No they flew planes into the building.

Media collusion? Why dont the mainstream media investigate all the bull****?

They have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljWrRYTFtNE

You just won't like the answers.

[quote[
How did the BBC know wtc 7 was about to be blown up?
[/quote]

It didn't blow up. It collapsed. And there were reports coming throughout the day that the building was going to collapse.

They annouced it before it happened on live TV then had to cut the feed because it was about to happen behind them live on air. Watch it on youtube.

We discussed it earlier this month on this forum.

I aint linking anything, I want this to be a free flowing non link-a-thon, if possible. People know how to type stuff in google, they can do it for themselves.

Wow this will go well.

Yes, it does appear that bombs were planted under the tube trains on 7/7, many people reported the floors blowing upwards and the twisted metal coming up and killing people. No photos have been seen to prove otherwise, but then many people died there so they dont want to show them.

It was reported that one bomb was under the carriage

I asked passengers what they had seen and experienced and was told by two survivors from the bombed train that, at the moment of the blast, the covers on the floor of their carriage had flown up - the phrase they used was "raised up". There was no time to check their statements as moments later the police widened the cordon and I was directed to the opposite pavement, outside the Metropole hotel.
Moments later, Davinia Turrell, the famous "woman in the mask", emerged from M&S together with other injured passengers and I followed them into the hotel. It was from there that at around 11am I phoned a hurried, and what I now know to be flawed, audio report to the Guardian. In the report, broadcast on our website, I said that it "was believed" there had been an explosion "under the carriage of the train". I also said that "some passengers described how the tiles, the covers on the floors of the train, flew up, raised up".


It later became clear from interviewing other passengers who had been closer to the seat of the explosion that the bomb had actually detonated inside the train, not under it, but my comments, disseminated over the internet where they could be replayed ad nauseam, were already taking on a life of their own.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jun/27/july7.uksecurity

The 4 bombers may have been shot dead at canary wharf in a seperate incident, but were later blamed as patsies.

Yes because if you're going to execute four men you really want to do it in the middle of the London business district on a work day.

Ill get back to you about the cctv timeline, im weak on that one im afraid. Its still ridiculous that some how the most CCTVed place in the world only got a gammy shot of the supposed bombers and at the wrong time aswell.

Time stamps can be wrong.

I'd have to say that thats fake aswell im afraid. If it was decent footage from multiple camaras I would consider it.

The bourne supremacy is not a documentary.

If you dont think Daniel was on the bus, no problem, One thing to keep in mind tho, if he was on the bus and is telling the truth, then he will be attacked and slurred like no one has ever been slurred before. Ill be mildy cautious of his claims, yes, but I would also be cautious of those who pick him out specifically for criticism.

I'm sorry you raised Daniel Daniel gets raised all the time and it's fair to criticise his story. Because that's what I think it is, a story.

Google or youtube '7/7 the bandaged man', you will get a nice view of that plant and a couple of other agents that are looking after him.

Which is just ****ing daft.

The bus exploded outside the National Orthopaedic HospitalWithin seconds of the blast half a dozen doctors and nurses were on the scene. Of course patients received instant bandages and help.

Your posts are woefully ignorant of the discusses that have already occured on this forum.

Lefticus Loonaticus

@di0genes

Building 7 was hit by an engine from the second plane I think, many videos of it. It was not consumed by fire, it had some minor fires on a few floors alright tho. The owner of the 3 three buildings, Larry Silverstein, admitted later that the decision was made to "pull it", eg, blow it to dust. The videos of building 7 going down show it to be in very good shape IMO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

I wont really argue with you over pensilvania or the pentagon, time to move on, we all have different opinions. As I said in the first post, some things we will just never know.

The FBI went to that hotel and confiscated the video from the manager as far as I can remember, im sure they will release it under a freedom of information act when we are old and gray and you can prove me wrong then.

The thing about the passport tho, if they were caught planting one, then they are out of road and I wont believe another word of it.

At least 3 of the supposed 7/7 bombers were reported to be shot at canary wharf. It was apparantly live on bbc radio and many other stations, cant find a clip of it but have seen it mentioned more than enough times so i assume many people heard it. It just seems to fit since the 7/7 story kinda changed all day long until eventually it came down to 4 suicide bombers. It also fits in the sense that there were not on those tubes at all, thus why no evidence apart from a bollox fake video frames have been released. Its very easy for that stuff to be faked. They were pasties, involved with inteligence services, who set them up somthing nasty.

No, no one can have a full bandage like that around their head, outside the bus within 20 seconds or so of the blast, that is impossible. The fastest it could be done would be maybe, hmmm, a minute perhaps, but I doubt it still. On the basis that Daniel is telling the truth that is. That guy had shag all injuries while there were bodies strewn all over the place, I hardly think they rushed to him in less than 10 seconds. The roof of the bus took ten seconds to float back down.

No need to get your knickers in a twist by the way, I clearly pointed out at the begining that its time to move on with the false flag issue, we cant keep going over minor details while the wider picture is ignored. I did admit that there are many holes, its always going to be like that because you are dealing with inteligence agencies who cover their asses in ways you could never even imagine. It also an exploratory hypothesis, which we need to be moving on to given the reasons I point out clearly in the first post. Ill be damned if im gonna talk about a hole in the side of the pentagon for another ten years. No thx!

I have no problem with critical anaylsis at all, but if you really dont like what I or other people say, well, no one is asking you to like it. I dont really like it myself to be honest, its not a cheery topic.

Tell your arguments to the families of 7/7 who barely had bodies to bury, they want a public inquiry because they know its bullsh1t that they are being fed.
[/SIZE]

Talk E

Table 1 – Reports of Activity at Canary Wharf, 7th – 10th July 2005

Date/Time
Source
Text of News Report 7th July, 11.49 GMT “Pammy”
Ceroc Scotland Forum “My cousin works at Canary Wharf and they are now evacuating there, not sure if "just in case" or if they have heard something is up...”
7th July, 12.13 GMT “Gus”
Ceroc Scotland Forum “Its very odd in Canary Wharf at the moment. The offices are usually a lively place ... today there is no laughter, no smiles ... a sombre place. We're in a very real crisis situation, we've been informed that the entire Wharf is locked down, no one comes in, no one leaves ... not that there is any transportation to take you anywhere.”
7th July, 12.28 GMT “DavidB”
Ceroc Scotland “I'm in Canary Wharf, and most people still seem to be at work. There are loads of police and security around, and all the buildings are doing ID checks at the entrances. There was a rumour that to (sic) police stopped a suspected bomber getting to canary wharf, but not heard anything else about that yet.”
7th July, 12.34 GMT “Europhobia”
Internet Blog “Someone here at work has just been phoned by a guy he knows in Canary Wharf (I know, it’s a bit removed – but I trust him). He says marines have shot a man there who they think to have been a suicide bomber”.
7th July, 9.48 EST,
(13.48 GMT) CNN Breaking News “QUESTION: Can you tell me -- the rumors that a police sniper shot dead a suicide bomber at Canary Wharf (ph). Do you know anything about that?
[BRIAN] PADDICK: We have no reports of any police sniper shooting at anybody today.”
7th July, 11:34 EST
(16.34 GMT) Kate Rook, reporter
GlobeAndMail.com A Massive Rush of Policemen

“From the 18th floor of Canary Wharf in London, Canadian Brendan Spinks could see a massive rush of policemen outside the building Thursday after the city was rocked by terrorist attacks. The Internet in his office had just gone down when Mr. Spinks, an investment banker at HSBC, saw a flurry of police cars and yellow-vested men outside. Reports of attacks carried out by suicide bombers were rife, and in one unconfirmed incident police shot a suicide bomber outside the 42-floor banking tower…”
8th July Lucy Hyslop, reporter
Vancouver Sun, Final Edition
Lucy Hyslop, Senior Editor, Daily Telegraph,
Canary Wharf. “Canary Wharf, the tallest building in London and my office, was sealed off completely to the public and all routes in and out were secured. Office workers, some fearing another 9/11-style attack, decided to turn back and begin the long walk home.

Rumours and misinformation were rife. I had one call from a friend reporting that two suicide bombers had been shot dead at Canary Wharf, another woman said her policeman husband had been sent to the area to wait just in case of further attacks.”
8th July James Starnes, reporter
Ottawa Citizen, Final Edition “The radio is saying they shot dead a suicide bomber at Canary Wharf and that's right opposite my apartment across the river (Thames).”
8th July John Walsh, reporter
The Independent, London Terror In London

“Farouz, a business technician in Docklands…had heard the rumours. ‘Someone at work was saying a suicide bomber had been shot dead by police just outside the Tower. But the police are denying it,' he added darkly.”
8th July Steve Nowotty,
Huntsville Times (Alabama) Bombing Turned Thoughts to Mum

“Everyone had their story. Another colleague, Nicola, had returned late from holiday, and been forced to cancel a meeting. She was lucky - she would have been on the Tube in rush hour.

Nicola's best friend was working in Canary Wharf - London's answer to the World Trade Center. She called in the afternoon, still in the building. Her office had been told not to leave, and rumors were flying. Someone had been shot. Maybe a suicide bomber. No one was sure.”
8th July News,
The Evening Standard (Palmerston, New Zealand) London Based Kiwis Send Messages Home

“Felicity Lawlor, formerly from Auckland, emailed her sister in Rongotea this morning to say she arrived at work to hear about an explosion in the Underground…“Ms Lawlor said there were ‘lots of crazy rumours flying around’ like a suicide bomber having been shot dead outside Canary Wharf.”
8th July, 9.03am Susan Percy,
New Zealand Herald, Messages Bulletin Board London Bombing

“One man said he had heard that police marksmen had shot a potential suicide bomber at Canary Wharf but I haven't seen that reported by the news channel.”
9th July News Section
The News Zealand Herald News

“A New Zealander working for Reuters in London says two colleagues witnessed the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide bombers outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London.

The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of the two men wearing bombs happened at 10.30am on Thursday (London time).

Following the shooting, the 8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were told to stay away from windows and remain in the building for at least six hours, the New Zealand man said.

He was not prepared to give the names of his two English colleagues, who he said witnessed the shooting from a building across the road from the tower.”
9th July Simon Houpt
The Globe and Mail
(Canada) Citizens of the World Report

“On Thursday, editors across London dealt with the same issue. At the Times Online, news editor Mark Sellman noted that a number of tips came in that turned out to be false. "You're in a very hot point, stuff was coming in but it's not necessarily reliable, and you have to check it out," he said. "There were urban myths, and you do have to ignore them. Someone said a suicide bomber was shot dead in Canary Wharf, and that was an urban myth."
10th July South London News Suicide Bomber Neutralised in Canary Wharf, London

“On Thursday 7th July, a suspected suicide bomber was shot dead by police marksman outside Canary Wharf, the financial district of London. It is believed he was 'neutralized' outside the Credit Suisse First Boston bank. Police are 'probing'. The 'suicide bomber' is believed to have been part of a co-ordinated team of other suicide bombers. The alleged bomber was killed on the same day of the central London terror attacks.”
10th July Nigel Farndale,
Sunday Telegraph (London) We’re Still New Yorkers

“One thing about which all we rumour mongers were agreed was that a suicide bomber had definitely been shot by security forces while attempting to blow up Canary Wharf.”
10th July News Section,
The Observer News

“Down at Westminster, wild rumours - none of them true - were circulating: a police sniper had shot a would-be suicide bomber at Canary Wharf; troops were to be put on the streets; the casualties were higher than Madrid', when 191 died.”

Di0genes

Yes TalkE there were plenty of rumours flying around that day.

On 911 there were rumours, reported in the media, that a car bomb detonated outside the state department building.

It didn't, but the fact that it was reported doesn't make it true.

Lefticus Loonaticus

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

@di0genes

Building 7 was hit by an engine from the second plane I think, many videos of it. It was not consumed by fire, it had some minor fires on a few floors alright tho.

It all depends on how much you actually look.
Have you ever seen this picture of WTC7 before?

Or this video of it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

Since you're towing the usual line of "only minor fires" I'm going to assume you've only seen the photos and video fed to you by CT sites.

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

The owner of the 3 three buildings, Larry Silverstein, admitted later that the decision was made to "pull it", eg, blow it to dust.

Now aside for the fact that people are constantly taking the quote out of context, and it doesn't make any sense in the context of a confession, why in the name of God would this guy admit he knew about and was involved in the greatest crime ever on film?

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

The videos of building 7 going down show it to be in very good shape IMO.

Except for the fact there's a whole section of the roof that collapses inwards before the rest of the building.
But again, they rarely show that on CTer sites.

Di0genes

[Embedded Image Removed]

Building 7 was hit by an engine from the second plane I think, many videos of it.

1. The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

2. At that time, other firefighters started showing up, Deputy Battalion Chief Paul Ferran of the 41 Battalion, and James Savastano of the First Division assigned to the Second Battalion showed up and we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. – FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF

3. [Shortly after the tower collapses] I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn't see any fire at that time. Deputy ––Chief Nick Visconti http://tinyurl.com/paqux

4. A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110045.PDF

5. I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone in. –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

6. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.

Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. – Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp

7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion [the collapse of the north tower]. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

8. Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway, in a letter to me.

9. So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF

10. Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn't know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7.

We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.

Q. Were you injured?

A. Yes, I saw some stuff had fallen on me. I didn't believe that I was injured at that time. I discovered later on I was injured. I had some shards of glass impaled in my head, but once I was able to get all this debris and rubble off of me and cover my face with my jacket so that I could breathe, it was very thick dust, you couldn't see. We heard some sounds. We reached out and felt our way around. I managed to find some other people in this lower lobby. We crawled over towards the direction where we thought the door was and as we approached it the door cracked open a little, so we had the lights from the loading bay. We made our way over there. The loading bay doors were 3-fourths of the way shut when this happened, so they took a lot of dust in there, but everyone in those bays was safe and secure. We had face to face contact with Chief Maggio and Captain Nahmod. They told me – I said do whatever you need to do, get these people out of here. Go, go towards the water. –EMS Division Chief Jon Peruggia
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110160.PDF

11. You could see the damage at 7 World Trade Center, the damage into the AT&T building.
–FDNY Firefighter Vincent Palmieri http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110258.PDF

12. At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. –Fred Marsilla, FDNY
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110399.PDF

13. The way we got into the loading dock [of WTC 7] was not the way we were getting out. It was obstructed.

Q. The door was blocked?

A. Yeah, and we found our way -- we walked across the loading dock area, and we found there was another door. We went in that door, and from there we were directed to -- I really guess it was like a basement area of the building, but we were directed to an opposite door. –Dr. Michael Guttenberg , NYC Office of Medical Affairs http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110005.PDF

14. We eventually ended up meeting after the second explosion, three of us met up here, but I didn't see a lot of the people that were with me until two, three days later. I got word that they were okay. For instance, Dr. Guttenberg and Dr. Asaeda, who were at 7 World Trade Center, they got trapped in there and had to like climb in and out and get out because that building also became very damaged supposedly and they were there. We thought they were dead. I guess he was in an area where Commissioner Tierney might have been, I believe. I think she was in 7 also. –Paramedic Manuel Delgado http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110004.PDF

(After collapse of south tower)
15. The decision was either to go left or right and we ended up going right, between the two buildings, in the alleyway on the north, which turned out to be the right direction because apparently there was a lot of debris and part of 7 down already. Also, I did notice as I was making my exit the sound of the firefighters' alarms indicating that they were down. I did remember that as well but just could not see anything. –Dr. Glenn Asaeda http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110062.PDF

16. I saw the firefighter. There were people screaming out of one of these two buildings over here saying they couldn't get out, and my partner took one straggler fireman, the one that we had with us, and was trying to break the door because the door obviously had shifted or something. They couldn't get the door open.

Q: That was 7 World Trade Center?

A: I believe it was 7. Maybe it was 5. It was at the back end of it because I do remember the telephone company [which is next to building 7]. So I think it was the back end of 7, I think right over here at that point, and they couldn't get out. Then I had ran down the block and I flagged a ladder company and they brought the ladder, which they had like a vestibule that you couldn't like really reach the people because the ladder wouldn't reach. So they went and got other resources, they went inside the building, and I told my partner that it wasn't safe and that we need to go because everything around us was like falling apart. –EMT Nicole Ferrell http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110304.PDF

17. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower. – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

18. At that point, they said that Seven World Trade had no face and it was ready to collapse. – EMT Mercedes Rivera: (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 29)

19. You see the white smoke, you see the thing leaning like this? It's definitely going. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out, and it's already, the structural integrity is not there. –Unidentified firefighter in this video.

20. As far as I was concerned, we were still trapped. I was hopeful. things were looking a whole lot better now than they were just a few minutes earlier, but we were a long way from safe and sound. Five World Trade Center was fully involved, Six World Trade Center was roaring pretty good, and behind them Seven World Trade Center was teetering on collapse.
The buildings just behind him and to his left were looking like they too might collapse at any time, and there were whole chunks of concrete falling to both sides. Flames dancing everywhere. The small-arms detonations were kicking up a notch or two, and it sounded like this poor guy was being fired at, by snipers or unseen terrorists, at close range. (Last Man Down by Richard Picciotto, FDNY Battalion Commander Penguin Books, 2002. page 191)

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

It was not consumed by fire, it had some minor fires on a few floors alright tho. T

Really?

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.

8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa

9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --

Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?

A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan

10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf page 48.
11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings. –M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports03.pdf page 49

[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]
12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy

13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv

14. Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.

I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it. [Note: I deleted the link this account, and searching the net for the text doesn’t turn up anything. This sounds like an account from north tower stairwell B survivor. Anyone who knows for sure, let me know.]

15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 69

17. "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.
We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook
(Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable, just before collapse):
I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.
...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot. So as I’m going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. I’m backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out.
He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.
Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didn’t look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.
Q: Would that be towards West Street?
A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....[west]
–Firefighter Gerard Suden

18. I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "**** 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan

19. I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy

20. We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5183/index.html

21. They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations.
–Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon

22. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury

23. We assisted some FDNY personnel who were beginning to attempt to fight the fire at 7 WTC. We assisted in dragging hose they needed to bring water into the building. –Kenneth Kohlmann PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 26

24. My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/profiles/profiles_vitchers_t.html
25. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)
26. At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything. – Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)
27. The 7 World Trade Center was roaring. All we could think is we were an Engine Company, we have got to get them some water. We need some water you know. With that, we positioned the rig, I don't know, 3 quarters of a block away maybe. A fire boat was going to relay water to us. I don't know if I have things in the right order, whatever, if we were getting water out of a hydrant first. Jesus Christ --
Q. Captain said you were getting water. You were draining a vacuum?
A. It was draining away from us. Right. We had to be augmented. I think that's when the fire boat came. I think the fire boats supplied us. Of course you don't see that. You just see the (inaudible) way and you know, we are hooking up and we wound up supplying the Tower Ladder there. I just remember feeling like helpless, like everybody there was doomed and there is -- I just felt like there was absolutely nothing we could do. I want to just go back a little bit.–Firefighter Kevin Howe
28. "When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window has fire. It is an amazing site. –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6. (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002. P. 103)

29. Firefighter TJ Mundy: "The other building, #7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse." (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002.)
30. 7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable. –Firefighter Steve Modica http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/modica.html
31. So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.
–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim http://www.911report.com/media/davidlim.pdf

32. We could hear fires crackling. We didn’t know it at the time, but No. 7 World Trade Center and No. 5 World Trade Center were immediately adjacent to us and they were roaring, they were on fire. Those were the sounds that we were hearing. ...At the same time, No. 5 World Trade Center, No. 6 World Trade Center and No. 7 World Trade Center were roaring. They were on fire. And they were right next to us. So we have all that smoke that we’re dealing with.
–FDNY Capt. Jay Jonas http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jonas.htm

he owner of the 3 three buildings, Larry Silverstein, admitted later that the decision was made to "pull it", eg, blow it to dust. The videos of building 7 going down show it to be in very good shape IMO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

Ten years later and people still claim that Larry Silverstein not only committed murder and insurance fraud, but then admitted these crimes in a television interview

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/larrysilverstein%27s%22pullit%22quote

I wont really argue with you over pensilvania or the pentagon, time to move on, we all have different opinions. As I said in the first post, some things we will just never know.

No WE DO KNOW

Exhaustive and detailed accounts of the rescue efforts, firefighting and cataloguing of damage, searching for victims remains exist.

Thousands of man hours were spent by hundreds of people at both sites.

Saying "hey lets agree to disagree" is crap.

You're wrong. I wont let it go.

Read some decent books on the subject
http://www.amazon.com/Among-Heroes-United-Flight-Passengers/dp/0060099097/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195642659&sr=1-2

Amongst heroes, about United 93

Firefight
http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon/dp/0891419055/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212415983&sr=8-1

Onto the pentagon.

The FBI went to that hotel and confiscated the video from the manager as far as I can remember, im sure they will release it under a freedom of information act when we are old and gray and you can prove me wrong then.

No I don't you have to show me, how on earth that camera would have a clear wide angled view of the Penatgon.

The thing about the passport tho, if they were caught planting one, then they are out of road and I wont believe another word of it.

That sentence makes literally no sense

At least 3 of the supposed 7/7 bombers were reported to be shot at canary wharf. It was apparantly live on bbc radio and many other stations, cant find a clip of it but have seen it mentioned more than enough times so i assume many people heard it.

They didn't play it, or have it because it never happened

It just seems to fit since the 7/7 story kinda changed all day long until eventually it came down to 4 suicide bombers. It also fits in the sense that there were not on those tubes at all,

Tell that to the survivors who remember seeing them on the tube.

thus why no evidence apart from a bollox fake video frames have been released. Its very easy for that stuff to be faked.

If it's so easy to be faked, why is their fake so bad?

They were pasties, involved with inteligence services, who set them up somthing nasty.

Proof?

No, no one can have a full bandage like that around their head, outside the bus within 20 seconds or so of the blast,

How do you know it was 20 seconds after the blast?

that is impossible. The fastest it could be done would be maybe, hmmm, a minute perhaps, but I doubt it still. On the basis that Daniel is telling the truth that is.

Daniel is lying, he was never on the bus.

That guy had shag all injuries while there were bodies strewn all over the place, I hardly think they rushed to him in less than 10 seconds. The roof of the bus took ten seconds to float back down.

Source?

No need to get your knickers in a twist by the way, I clearly pointed out at the begining that its time to move on with the false flag issue, we cant keep going over minor details while the wider picture is ignored. I did admit that there are many holes, its always going to be like that because you are dealing with inteligence agencies who cover their asses in ways you could never even imagine. It also an exploratory hypothesis, which we need to be moving on to given the reasons I point out clearly in the first post. Ill be damned if im gonna talk about a hole in the side of the pentagon for another ten years. No thx!

I have no problem with critical anaylsis at all, but if you really dont like what I or other people say, well, no one is asking you to like it. I dont really like it myself to be honest, its not a cheery topic.

If you cant prove it was a false flag the entire premise of your point is bankrupt.

Tell your arguments to the families of 7/7 who barely had bodies to bury, they want a public inquiry because they know its bullsh1t that they are being fed.
[/SIZE]

The families of the victims don't believe in the conspiracy theories.

Just ask Rachel North who's the leader of the Victims support group.

http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2009/07/andy-haymans-book-77-conspiracy.html

Lefticus Loonaticus

@Di0genes + MontyBurns

WTC 7 was a classic controlled demolition in every way possible, Larry silverstein admitted it by saying the decision was made to pull it, which means nothing other than to bring it down via demolition. I dont know how this is even up for debate, are you people actually saying hes not saying what hes saying, or that hes saying somthing but that really means somthing else? He said they pulled it! It means nothing else other than to pull the building down.

BBC knew it beforehand then made a bollox of it by annoucing it too soon, they cut the feed to stop it happening live on air when they saw it was still standing behind the presenter! I doubt they just lost the feed by accident at that point, its far too much a coincidence. They must have known some how that it was going to be a demolition and thats why the feed was cut. If was just going to be a collapse it wouldnt have been any reason to cut the feed since it would have just been a normal looking collapse. On the otherhand, a total and instant, almost perfectly semetrical demo fall would have looked abnormal to say the least.

Its a 110% controlled demolition, admitted by the owner, verified by multiple videos, with the classic kink in the mid section as the supports are unilaterally blown out and then an almost perfect drop into itself. No way in hell or high water was that any sort of accidental collapse. The only way it could have happened the collapse way is if the core mid section of the building was some how completely taken cleanly out and then yet it still stayed standing perfectly until everyone managed to get to safety before it fell straight down with zero resistence. It didnt fall sideways, it didnt fall apart, it didnt break apart and pieces didnt break off it.

The problem is not really the demolition of it, theres no problem at all bringing down a building thats supposedly damaged. Its the amount of time it takes to rig a building to go down like that, adding to that then the widely suspected probability that the other 2 towers we brought down in the same way and people began to realise that it takes far, far longer than a few hours to do such a thing, adding even more weight to the idea that all three of them were extensively rigged for a very long time before any plane arrived on the scene.

What do you think of this guy here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dgJTR6ZR24&feature=related
He says he has 700 architects and engineers who are demanding a new investigation into 911, it is from a couple of years ago, seems still to be a very valid arguement. Same argument half the damn planet has been putting forward for years, so please try not to be so outraged when other people have a different opinions other than the official story.
　
@Di0genes

9/11

Will you stop please with the passport thing. There was a saudi national who lost his passport. His passport later turned up during 911 and the FBI tried to frame him as a hijacker, but he turned up still alive! I think they tried it with about 4 or 5 saudi nationals. Google it, learn about, and stop at me about it. If you had any knowledge of the wealth of info contained in many, many 9/11 documentaries then you would surely know of this part. I suppose they just really needed to blame somone in a hurry.
I made the point that if they are caught trying to frame somone or caught planting evidence, then is it not very obvious that you should be careful about whatever else they say? Would it not be a stupid and gullible thing to just take this stuff at face value from people who are proven liars or who are proven to have gotten their facts very wrong?

7/7

Its thought they are pasties yeah, MI5 was known to have come into contact with 2 of them before 7/7, some of them may have been informants. Heres a recent fuss about it anyway - http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/77-bombers-were-innocent-patsies-15153899.html

How do I know the bandaged guy was about 20 seconds? Because I have listened to yer man Daniels interview, which of course you could do aswell, if you were even bothered, which of course you are not. You just want to pretend the guy does not exist, because if hes telling the truth, which he very well may be, then the debunkers have not a hope in hell of ever explaining it away . Saying that he was not on the bus isnt a great argument to hang on to. I could claim that about any other person that was on that bus and if you cant show me a photo or a video of them then they were not there either. Tavastock square does not have much video or photos, and there is a cctv camara video on youtube here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3u3IHDegWo. Perhaps in due time we will get rest of this footage and we will know what happened as the blast went off. Until then, we can only wonder.

And just for the sake of arguement, not with regard to Rachael North or any other victims, but the bbc documentary '7/7 conspiracy files' was only shown because a lid could not be kept on it anymore and people wanted to see somthing tangable being done by the bbc. Its the same as any other mainstream media program about anything thats to much of a scandal. Its well designed to dodge and dive the main points, hold up the offcial story and leave people feeling warm and fussy inside. What else do you expect the bbc to come out with? With any sort of claim, or legitimite argument that somone, somwhere within the british established is perhaps even the slightest bit responsible for what happened? Not in a trillion years would such a thing ever be contemplated on primetime TV.
　
Some of the families want MI5 and other groups investigated for "failings". In lay mans terms that means that they are either at somthing or hiding somthing. One such family member is Fatayi-Williams. Sure if they have nothing to hid then theres no problem, even a few mistakes that may have made is nothing for them to be worried about. If it was more than just a few mistakes id say they would be pretty worried though.

Lefticus Loonaticus

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

@Di0genes + MontyBurns

WTC 7 was a classic controlled demolition in every way possible, Larry silverstein admitted it by saying the decision was made to pull it, which means nothing other than to bring it down via demolition. I dont know how this is even up for debate, are you people actually saying hes not saying what hes saying, or that hes saying somthing but that really means somthing else? He said they pulled it! It means nothing else other than to pull the building down.

And if you actually watch the entire interview and not just the out of context bits you are fed by CT sites, you'd find the "it" that was pulled was in fact the firefighting operation to try and save the building.

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

Now if we are to believe in the conspiracy explanation for this, you're going to explain a few things that don't make a bunch of sense.
1. Why were the firefighters fighting the fire at all if it was rigged to blow?
2. Why, if all the towers were rigged to blow, was the decision made to actually blow it up hours later?
3. In the context of the quote, Silverstien specifically says that he didn't order anything, it was the firechief's decision. Why would the decision to blow up a building (as part of a massive conspiracy no less) be left to a fireman?
4. Why in your narrative was the decision left to Silverstien?
5. Since you believe he's involved in and confessing to the greatest crime ever which lead to the murder of 3000 people, why does he say: "We've had such terrible loss of life..."?
6. (and this is the big one) Why the **** does he confess on camera?

Also how come you're not mentioning the "fact" there was only small fires in the building? Do you still believe that?

Di0genes

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

@Di0genes + MontyBurns

WTC 7 was a classic controlled demolition in every way possible, Larry silverstein admitted it by saying the decision was made to pull it,

Again

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/larrysilverstein%27s%22pullit%22quote

“This building—the last to fall on 9-11—is key to all controlled-demolition theories. Its sudden fall onto its own footprint, and developer Larry Silverstein's reference on TV to telling the FDNY to "pull it," are seen as evidence that WTC7 was rigged to fall.” –911truth.org Keep in mind that this misrepresentation comes from is one of the leading organizations of the 9/11 “Truth Movement.” (This is a national organization, not to be confused with ny911truth.org, already mentioned.)

Larry Silverstein was the owner of the 47-story WTC building 7, which collapsed on 9/11, and he owns the new 52-story building 7, which opened in May, 2006 on the site of the old building. He was the leaseholder on most of the other WTC buildings, including the Twin Towers (the property is owned by The Port of New York and New Jersey Authority). He won the right to the 99-year lease only six weeks before September 11, 2001, after a long public bidding process.

During an interview in 2002 for the PBS documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, Mr. Silverstein said this about the fate of building 7 on 9/11:

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

The conspiracy theorists (hereafter referred to as “CTs”) believe that Silverstein was ordering the FDNY to demolish, or to allow to be demolished, building 7.

In my experience, the CTs are in such a hurry to get to the “pull it” phrase that they neglect to read the statement carefully. While I will provide much evidence in this paper that’s intended to convince the most hardcore CT, all that’s really necessary is to apply a bit of logic to the Silverstein statement, so I’ll start by doing that.

The setting: Larry Silverstein is being interviewed by a documentary crew from PBS. He calmly, clearly describes what happened. CTs would have us believe that Silverstein accidentally let it slip – twice, for a national TV audience – that he ordered his building to be demolished! Does that make any sense whatsoever? Can the CTs give an example of a similar “accidental confession” of a monumental crime in the history of the world? Keep in mind that if Silverstein thought he had said something wrong, he could simply have asked the crew to shoot that part again. Silverstein is a very smart guy who is in full possession of his mental faculties. He didn’t “slip up.”

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander...”
That was 32-year-veteran FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, who was in charge of the World Trade Center incident following Chief of Department Peter Ganci’s death in the collapse of the north tower. Silverstein was at home with his wife when he received the courtesy call from Chief Nigro in the afternoon.

Update

Whomever Silverstein spoke with, it wasn't Chief Nigro. As reported by "Ref" at the JREF forum, Chief Nigro did not speak with Silverstein:

"I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it." Source

“...telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire...”
That’s correct, as we will see in great detail below.
“...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'”
Let’s use some logic. Was Silverstein saying,
“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”
or was he saying,
“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”?

which means nothing other than to bring it down via demolition.

Once more.

Brent Blanchard, a demolitions expert with Protec, and contributor to ImplosionWorld.com, weighs in with his expert opinion:

We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.

In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and debris removal processes at Ground Zero. These processes included the mechanical pull-down of the remains of the U.S. Customs Building (WTC 6) and various other activities occurring simultaneously throughout the site. http://tinyurl.com/z6zyc

From the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts:
Four demolition and engineering experts tell Popular Mechanics that pull it is not slang for controlled demolition. "I've never heard of it," says Jon Magnusson of Magnusson Klemencic Associates.
Ron Dokell, retired president of Olshan Demolishing Company, says the same thing. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. adds that the only way he can imagine the term being used is in reference to a process where the legs of a structure are precut and attached to cables, and then large machines are used to literally pull the building to the ground.

[/QUOTE] I dont know how this is even up for debate, are you people actually saying hes not saying what hes saying, or that hes saying somthing but that really means somthing else? He said they pulled it! It means nothing else other than to pull the building down.
[/quote]

IT MEANS PULL THE FIRE FIGHTING OPERATION

It certainly was used that way on 9/11. Again and again, “pull” is how firefighters and EMTs describe the afternoon withdrawal from the area in and around WTC 7. In the accounts I’ve read, excluding Larry Silverstein’s, “pull” is used 30 times to refer to the withdrawal of WTC firefighting and rescue operations. 27 of those references are about WTC 7. Add Silverstein’s statement and we’ve got 32 references to “pull” meaning “withdraw.” My survey was not exhaustive.

Here’s a summary of the first-person accounts I’ve read. All but a few are from first responders:

41 – People who specifically mention the severity of the WTC 7 fires
29 – People who specifically mention extensive damage to WTC 7
104 – People who mention the FDNY order to withdraw from WTC 7 area
36 – Number of times “Pull” is used to mean “withdraw rescuers”
39 – Other witnesses who say the collapse of WTC 7 was expected
Download an Excel spreadsheet breakdown of these accounts

Doubters, please read the following accounts in full.

I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)
I do remember us being pulled off the pile. ...We were down by the pile to search or looking around. 7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down. –Firefighter Kevin Howe
Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to col-lapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. 


Firehouse Magazine: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. 


Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. –Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.
Q. It was on fire, correct, Captain?
A. Yes, it was on fire at that time. Then they said it suffered some form of structural damage. These things were going on at the same time. The fact that we thought we found Ganci and Feehan and his place at 7 World Trade Center. Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way. –Captain Ray Goldbach
So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. 
–Capt. Chris Boyle

Someone gave a Mayday. I guess it was someone trapped under one of the pedestrian bridges. We started to go under there to look. One of the Chiefs pulled us out of there. He said don't go under there. ..We searched that building and then we started making another move in and we got pulled out again, because I guess the Chiefs were getting more in control of the situation. They pulled everybody out of there. ...that was probably like four or five o'clock before we stopped. –Firefighter Todd Fredrickson

When the third building came down that's where we were (Stuyvesant High School). We were actually -- they pulled us all back. Actually they pulled us all the way back that far at the point because they didn't want any -- they didn't want us anywhere near it. Everyone was just running around. When the third building came down, we were on that corner in front of the school, and everybody just stood back.

They pulled us all back at that time, almost an hour before it, because they were sure -- they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe. They wouldn't let anyone next to I guess the two piles, we would call them, where one and two was. We stood back. We waited. –EMT Joseph Fortis

After that they decided to pull everybody out and I know -- what building was it? Building 5, I believe [sic], the other tall building there, the third building that came down, they were evacuating people. So everyone just pushed up West Street all the way up towards the high school there. I forget the name of the high school. –Firefighter Brian Russo
Then approximately I guess maybe two hours before number 7 came down, we went into Ground Zero and helped dig around and was there when they located Chief Feehan and one of the chiefs pulled us all out because they said 7 was going to come down. –Firefighter Kevin Quinn
So then they aborted us from setting up the tower ladder because they were worried about now Seven coming down. So then they pulled us away. This is where I kind of start remembering a lot.

We came around, I think we took Murray Street down the west side, and we stopped the rig and pulled over to the side and we all got out of the rig. We were standing, waiting for Seven to come down. We were there for quite a while, a couple hours.

During that time a couple of the members felt like we were being useless just standing around. We wanted to do something. So we started trying to walk down, trying to get into the pile. We kept on being turned around from chiefs, because they didn't want us near Seven.

As we were walking, we had to actually get a little closer to Seven. So we turned and looked at Seven, and that's when all the marble siding started popping off the side because it was starting to go down.

We worked our way putting out the car fires, which I don't know if there was ammunition, because there was a lot of cop cars, but there was explosions. Tires were exploding. There had to be about 15 or 20 car fires. We put them out as we worked our way down. –Firefighter Thomas Donato

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there.

Finally it did come down. From there -- this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down. That's when they let the guys go on. I just remember we started searching around all the rigs. –Firefighter Richard Banaciski
Then we were instructed to search through two or three buildings to make sure they were stable, and then they pulled everybody out because of the pink building. Was it 7 World Trade, that was going?
Q: Right. –Firefighter Adrienne Walsh
We operated until they finally started pulling people back. ...They pulled us back, I think it was like probably between 4 and 6, because of Seven. Seven was the concern at the time. –[EMAIL="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110399.PDF"]Firefighter Fred Marsilla[/EMAIL]
They put another engine company in there which augmented us. And the stream was even good enough to almost reach Tower 7. And then what happened was, we heard this rumbling sound and my father pulled us all back and then with that Tower 7 came down. –Firefighter Peter Blaich
At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything. – Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)

These firefighters mention being withdrawn from a different part of the WTC site because other buildings were believed to be in danger of collapse:
So we were in there just for a few minutes maybe and the chiefs pulled us out. They told us we had to get out, so we got out, and then later on we went back in again, and they pulled us out once more, and that was it. –Firefighter Peter Giammarino

We proceeded to go back one block to that post then slowly but surely every two minutes or so
when we started to regroup we were pulled back further and further and further until we were behind – until we were past Stuyvesant High School –Firefighter Dean Beltrami
While we were searching, that's when 7 World Trade Center was pretty much on fire, so after awhile, they -- we left, and they pulled a lot of people out of the rubble, because they were worried about 7 coming down, so we went back up Vesey, sat by the rig, because -- we kind of sat there for a long time, because they had pulled people back, because they were worried about 7 coming down.
...Q. So before 7 came down, they just verbally told to get out, and the radios weren't up then, right?
A. Yeah, I think our lieutenant said, "Look, we're going to take a break," and then just as we were leaving, they were moving everybody out anyway.

They were just saying, all right, just waving people out by signal, and that's pretty much it. We sat up by the rig which was being fed by the marine unit, and there was a line from us stretched to one of the tower ladders on Vesey, which had to also pull back, too, because of 7 coming down, and we just kind of stayed with the rig until 7 came down and kind of awaited orders and really didn't -- you know, really didn't get any assignments.

I guess they were worried about the stability of everything. –Firefighter Kevin McGovern
In this video of smoke billowing from WTC 7, several men (presumably firemen judging from their conversation, their proximity to the site, and their radio calls) speak about WTC 7:
"It's hot enough for the [Inaudible]"
"That's why he's pulled everybody outta here."
"That building's 50 stories, definitely reaching over here."
"[Inaudible] get everybody outta there, that's for sure."

BBC knew it beforehand then made a bollox of it by annoucing it too soon, they cut the feed to stop it happening live on air when they saw it was still standing behind the presenter! I doubt they just lost the feed by accident at that point, its far too much a coincidence.

Thats just not what happened.

Really just what just wrong. Period.

They must have known some how that it was going to be a demolition and thats why the feed was cut. If was just going to be a collapse it wouldnt have been any reason to cut the feed since it would have just been a normal looking collapse. On the otherhand, a total and instant, almost perfectly semetrical demo fall would have looked abnormal to say the least.

We've both pointed out that this is just flat out wrong.

What do you think of this guy here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dgJTR6ZR24&feature=related
He says he has 700 architects and engineers who are demanding a new investigation into 911, it is from a couple of years ago, seems still to be a very valid arguement. Same argument half the damn planet has been putting forward for years, so please try not to be so outraged when other people have a different opinions other than the official story.
　

Look you seem like a nice guy.

All. Of. This. Has. Been. Discussed. Already. On. This. Forum.

Will you stop please with the passport thing. There was a saudi national who lost his passport. His passport later turned up during 911 and the FBI tried to frame him as a hijacker, but he turned up still alive! I think they tried it with about 4 or 5 saudi nationals. Google it, learn about, and stop at me about it. If you had any knowledge of the wealth of info contained in many, many 9/11 documentaries then you would surely know of this part. I suppose they just really needed to blame somone in a hurry.
I made the point that if they are caught trying to frame somone or caught planting evidence, then is it not very obvious that you should be careful about whatever else they say? Would it not be a stupid and gullible thing to just take this stuff at face value from people who are proven liars or who are proven to have gotten their facts very wrong?

I'm sorry thats flat ****ing wrong.

It's literally untrue. It's like you half remembered the conspiracy theory.

I'm not even going to bother arguing with you. it's just wrong.

Its thought they are pasties yeah, MI5 was known to have come into contact with 2 of them before 7/7, some of them may have been informants. Heres a recent fuss about it anyway - http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/77-bombers-were-innocent-patsies-15153899.html

Thats about John Hill discussed already on this forum in another active thread, if you're not going to stay on top of the topics I'm not going to bother with you.

How do I know the bandaged guy was about 20 seconds? Because I have listened to yer man Daniels interview, which of course you could do aswell, if you were even bothered, which of course you are not.

I am bother. I've taken the trouble to explain. In detail. Why I don't think Daniel Obachike is a honest witness. Which is why I don't believe his claim that he saw the guy bandaged within 20 seconds.

Daniel Obachike, is a liar. Therefore I dismiss all his testimony.

You just want to pretend the guy does not exist, because if hes telling the truth, which he very well may be, then the debunkers have not a hope in hell of ever explaining it away . Saying that he was not on the bus isnt a great argument to hang on to. I could claim that about any other person that was on that bus and if you cant show me a photo or a video of them then they were not there either.

.

I've explained why I don't believe his narrative about how he was there. I don't believe it's possible for Daniel Obachike to be on the bus. I've not seen Daniel Obachike on any of the footage of the bus.

Therefore I dismiss his claim.

Tavastock square does not have much video or photos, and there is a cctv camara video on youtube here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3u3IHDegWo. Perhaps in due time we will get rest of this footage and we will know what happened as the blast went off. Until then, we can only wonder.

I'm sorry if that's Daniel's "proof" he was on the bus it's laughable.

Where's his oyster card if he was on the bus?

And just for the sake of arguement, not with regard to Rachael North or any other victims, but the bbc documentary '7/7 conspiracy files' was only shown because a lid could not be kept on it anymore and people wanted to see somthing tangable being done by the bbc. Its the same as any other mainstream media program about anything thats to much of a scandal. Its well designed to dodge and dive the main points, hold up the offcial story and leave people feeling warm and fussy inside. What else do you expect the bbc to come out with? With any sort of claim, or legitimite argument that somone, somwhere within the british established is perhaps even the slightest bit responsible for what happened? Not in a trillion years would such a thing ever be contemplated on primetime TV.
　

I literally don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Some of the families want MI5 and other groups investigated for "failings". In lay mans terms that meanings that they are either at somthing or hiding somthing. One such family member is Fatayi-Williams. Sure if they have nothing to hid then theres no problem, even a few mistakes that may have made is nothing for them to be worried about. If it was more than just a few mistakes id say they would be pretty worried though.

Do you have proof the Fatayi-Williams. family believe the conspiracy theories?

Monty Burnz

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

@Di0genes + MontyBurns

WTC 7 was a classic controlled demolition in every way possible, Larry silverstein admitted it by saying the decision was made to pull it, which means nothing other than to bring it down via demolition.

Um...I didn't post on this thread, but seeing as you asked I would say that 'pulling the building' referred to nothing other than pulling everyone out of it. That actually makes sense. Doesn't it make a hell of a lot more sense than saying - on camera - "damn - the damage is too severe to save it. Let's detonate all the charges that we planted in it to bring it down anyway"?

Can you think of any reason/context where it would make sense for him to publically announce that a controlled demolition should take place, using the terminology of controlled demolitions? Any reason at all?

Talk E

Plenty of "pulls" and "pulling" but not a single "pull it"

Di0genes wrote: »

“This building—the last to fall on 9-11—is key to all controlled-demolition theories. Its sudden fall onto its own footprint, and developer Larry Silverstein's reference on TV to telling the FDNY to "pull it," are seen as evidence that WTC7 was rigged to fall.” –911truth.org Keep in mind that this misrepresentation comes from is one of the leading organizations of the 9/11 “Truth Movement.” (This is a national organization, not to be confused with ny911truth.org, already mentioned.)

Larry Silverstein was the owner of the 47-story WTC building 7, which collapsed on 9/11, and he owns the new 52-story building 7, which opened in May, 2006 on the site of the old building. He was the leaseholder on most of the other WTC buildings, including the Twin Towers (the property is owned by The Port of New York and New Jersey Authority). He won the right to the 99-year lease only six weeks before September 11, 2001, after a long public bidding process.

During an interview in 2002 for the PBS documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, Mr. Silverstein said this about the fate of building 7 on 9/11:

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

The conspiracy theorists (hereafter referred to as “CTs”) believe that Silverstein was ordering the FDNY to demolish, or to allow to be demolished, building 7.

In my experience, the CTs are in such a hurry to get to the “pull it” phrase that they neglect to read the statement carefully. While I will provide much evidence in this paper that’s intended to convince the most hardcore CT, all that’s really necessary is to apply a bit of logic to the Silverstein statement, so I’ll start by doing that.

The setting: Larry Silverstein is being interviewed by a documentary crew from PBS. He calmly, clearly describes what happened. CTs would have us believe that Silverstein accidentally let it slip – twice, for a national TV audience – that he ordered his building to be demolished! Does that make any sense whatsoever? Can the CTs give an example of a similar “accidental confession” of a monumental crime in the history of the world? Keep in mind that if Silverstein thought he had said something wrong, he could simply have asked the crew to shoot that part again. Silverstein is a very smart guy who is in full possession of his mental faculties. He didn’t “slip up.”

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander...”
That was 32-year-veteran FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, who was in charge of the World Trade Center incident following Chief of Department Peter Ganci’s death in the collapse of the north tower. Silverstein was at home with his wife when he received the courtesy call from Chief Nigro in the afternoon.

Update

Whomever Silverstein spoke with, it wasn't Chief Nigro. As reported by "Ref" at the JREF forum, Chief Nigro did not speak with Silverstein:

"I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it." Source

“...telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire...”
That’s correct, as we will see in great detail below.
“...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'”
Let’s use some logic. Was Silverstein saying,
“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”
or was he saying,
“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”?

Di0genes

Talk E wrote: »

Plenty of "pulls" and "pulling" but not a single "pull it"

41 – People who specifically mention the severity of the WTC 7 fires
29 – People who specifically mention extensive damage to WTC 7
104 – People who mention the FDNY order to withdraw from WTC 7 area
36 – Number of times “Pull” is used to mean “withdraw rescuers”
39 – Other witnesses who say the collapse of WTC 7 was expected
Download an Excel spreadsheet breakdown of these accounts

and

Brent Blanchard, a demolitions expert with Protec, and contributor to ImplosionWorld.com, weighs in with his expert opinion:

We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.

In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and debris removal processes at Ground Zero. These processes included the mechanical pull-down of the remains of the U.S. Customs Building (WTC 6) and various other activities occurring simultaneously throughout the site. http://tinyurl.com/z6zyc

From the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts:
Four demolition and engineering experts tell Popular Mechanics that pull it is not slang for controlled demolition. "I've never heard of it," says Jon Magnusson of Magnusson Klemencic Associates.
Ron Dokell, retired president of Olshan Demolishing Company, says the same thing. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. adds that the only way he can imagine the term being used is in reference to a process where the legs of a structure are precut and attached to cables, and then large machines are used to literally pull the building to the ground.

And don't forget for the conspiracy to be true, Larry Silverstein has to confess his role in mass murder, terrorism and insurance fraud, on national television

Lefticus Loonaticus

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Um...I didn't post on this thread, but seeing as you asked I would say that 'pulling the building' referred to nothing other than pulling everyone out of it. That actually makes sense. Doesn't it make a hell of a lot more sense than saying - on camera - "damn - the damage is too severe to save it. Let's detonate all the charges that we planted in it to bring it down anyway"?

Can you think of any reason/context where it would make sense for him to publically announce that a controlled demolition should take place, using the terminology of controlled demolitions? Any reason at all?

Lol, oops dude. I Ment KingMob not you sorry, it must have been a flashback from a different thread .

I think the demo was fine in the beginning. But as the story began to unfold over the years I think people began to put certain pieces togather. It was perhaps when it became a potentially serious piece of evidence that threatened the story, then it became an issue maybe.

I think it was just a slip of the tongue in the belief that most people prob thought it was a demo anyway. He might regret it now tho.

Lefticus Loonaticus

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

I think it was just a slip of the tongue in the belief that most people prob thought it was a demo anyway. He might regret it now tho.

How can an entire anecdote be a slip of the tongue?
And even it was, why is the video with him messing up released in the first place?

Talk E

Given the FACT that almost every major war the US has been involved in was based on false flag events, it would be kinda strange and very unusual if 911 wasn't a false flag also. I mean, why change tactics at this stage ?

Di0genes

Given the FACT that almost every major war the US has been involved in was based on false flag events, it would be kinda strange and very unusual if 911 wasn't a false flag also. I mean, why change tactics at this stage ?

Wow. So instead of arguing the facts of "pull it" we're shifting the goalposts.

Talk E wrote: »

no single nation has planned an offensive war against the USA

Aside from WW2, and y'know the Cold War you're off to a rocky start right out of the gate.

Spanish-American war, 1898: The surprise explosion of the battleship Maine at Havana, Cuba. 255 of the crew died. The Hearst press accused the Spanish, claiming that the explosion was caused by a remote-controlled mine. The USA declared war on Spain, and conquered Philippines, Guam and Cuba. Subsequent investigations revealed that the explosion originated inside the Maine and that it was either an accident, such as a coal explosion, or some type of time bomb inside the battleship. Divers investigating the shipwreck found that the armour plates of the ship were blown bending outwards, not inwards.

How is this a False Flag? The ship blew itself up.

That was William Randolph Hearst a jingoistic press. There's no evidence of a internal bomb.

Most likely a coal explosion used in a era where such a act could strike a country to war.

World War I, 1914-1918: A U-boat torpedo hit ocean liner Lusitania near Britain and some 1200 people, including 128 Americans, on board lost their lives. Subsequent investigations revealed that the major explosions were inside the Lusitania, as it was secretly transporting 6 million pounds of artillery shells and rifle ammunition, as well as other explosives on behalf of Morgan banking corporation to help their clients, the Britain and the France. It was against US laws to transport war materials and passengers in the same ship.

Firstly? 6 million pounds? Really?

No sorry it was not against the law for US ships passenger ships to carry armaments. A fact that made US shipping a target for Germans. The US didn't.

How is this a false flag. Germans sink ship, America outcry, War declared (for this and other reasons)

World War 2, 1939-1945: A U-boat torpedo hit the ocean liner Athenia near Britain with some 1100 passengers, of which 311 were Americans. The sea was calm and only 118 people on board lost their lives. The ship was sunk because it behaved like a military transport, blackened out and zigzagging. This incident wasn't enough to precipitate war, and the Germans also refused to be provoked by several American acts of war. Americans confiscated German merchant ships, and Americans started to support the British with various lend-lease items, US volunteer pilots joined the RAF and some RAF pilots were trained in the US, US gave the British 50 old but usable WW1 destroyers and 20 modern torpedo boats, tanks, light bombers, fighter aircraft like P-40s and so on. American destroyers also escorted the convoys bound to Britain, and attacked German U-boats even far away from those convoys. The US did not maintain a neutral stance attitude towards the warring nations.

So? Weirdly the land of life liberty and pursuit of happiness didn't like totalitarian dictators. Who were rounding up jews and trade union members.

[quote[
The US naval intelligence, chief of Japan desk planned and suggested "8 insults", which should bring Japan into war with the US. President Roosevelt executed this plan immediately and also added some other insults, enraging the Japan. The most serious one was a total blockade of Japanese oil imports, as agreed between the Americans, British and the Dutch. FDR also declared an all-out embargo against the Japan and forbade them the use of Panama canal, impeding Japan's access to Venezuelan oil.
[/quote]

At the same time Japan was seizing European Colonies throughout South East Asia and had plans for the US controlled Philippines. Japan captured Port Moseby cutting off links between America and Australia. Japan had signed a treaty with the Soviet Union.

Your knowledge of this era is incredibly lax. It was a 3 year period of American hostility towards Japan, it was a vicious tit for tat, that meant war was going to happen. America genuinely believed the attack was coming to the Philippines.

The attack on Pearl Harbour followed some 6 months later. Having broken the Japanese encryption codes,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theory#Assertions_that_Japanese_codes_had_already_been_broken

the Americans knew what was going to happen, when and where, but the president did not dispatch this information to Pearl Harbor.

Thats a complete lie.

in late November 1941, both the U.S. Navy and Army sent explicit war with Japan warnings to all Pacific commands. Although these plainly stated the high probability of imminent war with Japan, and instructed recipients to be accordingly on alert for war

Americans even gave their friends the British 3 Magic decrypting machines which automatically opened encrypted Japanese military traffic.

Great but the Japanese didn't use it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra#Japanese

But this same information was not available to the commanders of Hawaii. The movement of the fleet was also visible in the very effective radio direction finding network.

Japan had an alliance with Germany, and the Germans upheld their promises by declaring the war against the USA right after the Japanese declaration.

So?

Two scapegoats, the navy commander Admiral Husband Kimmel, and the army commander Lt. General Walter Short were found incompetent and demoted as they were allowed to retire. Short died 1949 and Kimmel 1958. In 1995, the US Congress re-examined this decision and endorsed it. Then in 2000 some archive information came to light and the US Senate passed a resolution stating that both had served in Hawaii "competently and professionally". In 1941 they were denied vital information, and even on presidential orders purposefully mislead into believing that the Japanese feet could be expected from the southwest. These commanders have yet to be rehabilited by the Pentagon.

None of the above proves a false flag.

Korean War, 1950-1953: South Korean incursions (the Tiger regiment etc.) into North Korea (1949) led to contrary claims and into war. The cause of this war propably was covert action involving leaders of Taiwan, South Korea and the US military-industrial complex (John Foster Dulles has been mentioned as an organizer of the hostilities.) After the unpublished hostilities in 1949, the communist powers were strongly backing North Korea.

And what does this have to do with US false flags?

Chiang Kai Sek was being abandoned, isolated and falling prey to the powerful communist Chinese operations.

Talk-E where exactly is Chiang Kai Sek?

The right-wing South Korean ruler was expected to loose the soon-to-be-elections. The American military-industrial complex went into high gear again, and huge government orders for equipment were flowing in.
The American-led UN forces had difficult times early in the war, but after sufficient forces arrived they advanced victoriously and penetrated deep into the North Korea. The strong Chino-Russian intervention into the war once again turned the tides, the Chinese with vast armies on ground, and the Soviets less visibly with large numbers of aircraft, nearly costing the UN forces the war.
Finally the front stabilised along the original 38th parallel armistice line. The war resulted in the death of 3 million Korean Chinese and the destruction of virtually all of the Korean cities, and left Taiwan in strong American protection and South Korea firmly in the hands of the right-wing president Syngman Rhee. Some 55,000 Americans lost their lives.

Again seriously how is any of the above a false flag attack?

Vietnam War: "The Tonkin incident", where American destroyer Maddox was supposedly attacked twice by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. What was happening at the time were aggressive South Vietnamese raids against the North in the same general area. Huge American presence wasn't decisive and President Nixon negotiated a "peace with honour" in 1973. This war was lost, when North Vietnam finally conquered South Vietnam in 1975.

The Tonkin attacks weren't a false flag. North Vietnamese Torpedo boats did fire on the Maddox. People died five Vietnamese Sailors were killed.

Fail.

Grenada invasion: The Grenadian leader, Maurice Bishop, favouring the left and having invited Cubans to help build the infrastructure including by extending the airport to accomodate long range Soviet aircraft,

Yeah the US do have a problem with that....

was deposed and executed in October 19, 1983.

So Bishop wasn't in power and there was a coup in place.

Six days later the US invaded,

After it was requested by half a dozen nations.

with the proffered reason that the American medical students studying in the Grenada were in danger due the Cuban presence.

No one claims that.

War on Drugs: The war was launched by Richard M Nixon sometime around June 17,1971. The drug problem was found bad within the army in Viet Nam around 1968 prompting action was required towards the end of the war. Nowadays it is estimated that the military will never win the War on Drugs. The street prices of illicit drugs did not change significantly in the USA despite the military action in foreign drug-producing countries. The Colombian experience, with local military supported by the US, has shown that peace is more important than war against drugs. The Colombians have successfully negotiated some 1000s of guerrilla fighters back into the society and out of jungle.
This "war" actually seems to be a pretext for military invasions into less developed countries, where covert "bad" drug lords on behalf of western intelligence services are producing drugs into US and first world markets. This operation produces huge incomes, generating black budget money for those intelligence services managing the global drug operations.

Not a false flag.

Panama invasion: The incident between American and Panamanian troops led to invasion. The leader Noriega was changed and the earlier Carter administration plan to hand control of the canal over to Panama was cancelled. The strategic importance of the canal has surpassed any more just thinking in the US global domination policy.

Not a false flag. Jesus Talk E.

It's a complicated issue but no handing the Panama Canal over to thug was never going to be a goer.

US-Israeli sponsored war between Iraq and Iran, 1980-1988: The US has built power bases in the Middle East in Iran starting with the CIA-organised coup 1953, where Iranian prime minister Mossadeq was replaced with the Shah of Iran Reza Pahlavi and he by his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Iran was equipped with the best western military equipment, including the American F-14 fighters with Phoenix missiles and the British Chieftain MBTs. Unfortunately there was in 1979 a coup of ayatollah Khomeini replacing the Shah and founding an Islamite nation.
After this, the US warmed up relations with their good Iraqi friend Saddam Hussein, and started to build a nation capable of challenging the Iran. Iraq acquired large numbers of effective weapons including factories able to produce older versions of gas warfare agents. These would later be called WMDs, which of course they were not, being the WW1-vintage weapons.
The war broke out and was fought to exhaustion because third-party powers, especially Israel, were carefully monitoring the power balance supplying more weapons to the side which seemed to be loosing. "Too bad they both cannot loose" is how Kissinger evaluated this situation.

Again not a false flag.

Desert Storm (First Gulf war), 1991): Hussein asked for permission from the US (via their ambassador April Gillespie) and got an answer that the US does not care Arab quarrels.

I'm really going to need a source for this.

War on Terror: The war was launched by Bush administration October 2001. The war was claimed to be the response on terrorism, especially the 9-11 incidents. Most of the people in the world today know that these reasons are false and that those events were based on MIH type (make it happen) inside job.

Sorry I completely dispute this. I don't believe the US carried out 9/11

Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan invasion), 7.10.2001-: Without any evidence, the former CIA-asset, a Saudi-Arabian Osama bin Laden was claimed to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 strikes at the WTC and the Pentagon.

Sorry but Al Qaeda had already struck the WTC in 1993

Such a complex operation, if actually executed which it was not, in this case would be much beyond the capabilities of anything in Afghanistan. Only some top ten intelligence services in the world could hope to be successful in such an operation involving forgery, infiltration, living "underground" in a foreign non-Muslim country, coordination of moves, illegal arms, hi-quality flight training, accurate aircraft navigation in no-visibility conditions and so on. Perhaps even less, because the friends of the US (at that time, still most of the world) would also have been interested in stopping the attack.

Poppy cock.

Finally TalkE if you're going to C&P long tracts of crap, at least have the decency to quote the source.

Hookah

Interesting article concerning a Fox news reporter on the day...

http://norcaltruth.org/2011/04/02/new-video911-wtc-7-southwest-corner-with-fireman-radio-after-north-tower-demolition/

The original article...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/22/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/

Di0genes

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/larrysilverstein%27s%22pullit%22quote

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/is%22pullusedbydemolitionsprostomean%22demol

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/%22pull%22%3Dwithdrawfirefightersfromdanger



And the obvious point. If Larry Silverstein admitted to ordering the demolition of the WTC 7 in the interview, he's publically admitted his role in insurance fraud, and mass murder. Making him the dumbest criminal mastermind of all time.

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/is%22pullusedbydemolitionsprostomean%22demol

They 'pulled' building 6 also.

It does appear to be a demolition term in some context.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6227966981786417824#

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

They 'pulled' building 6 also.

It does appear to be a demolition term in some context.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6227966981786417824#

They demolished building 4&5 as well.

In this instance it refers to the

In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and debris removal processes at Ground Zero. These processes included the mechanical pull-down of the remains of the U.S. Customs Building (WTC 6) and various other activities occurring simultaneously throughout the site.

Pull refers to a mechanical pull down, not a controlled demolition.

Ron Dokell, retired president of Olshan Demolishing Company, says the same thing. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. adds that the only way he can imagine the term being used is in reference to a process where the legs of a structure are precut and attached to cables, and then large machines are used to literally pull the building to the ground.

Which is precisely what you see in your video.

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

They demolished building 4&5 as well.

In this instance it refers to the



Pull refers to a mechanical pull down, not a controlled demolition.



Which is precisely what you see in your video.

Ok. And the 'pull' from the website controlled-demolition.com (it appears a few times), what does it mean?

"Utilizing a total of 137 pounds of linear shaped charges and 50 lbs of dynamite “kicker charges”, CDI worked in only the partial basement to the west, the Lobby Level and 4th floor of the structure. Placed in over 400 locations, the shaped charges were sequentially initiated over a period of 5.4 seconds, working from southwest to northeast through the structure. Following the seemingly endless 2.6 second natural pause in the non-electric initiation system, the structural charges detonated on cue, allowing the southwest wing of the structure to fail first, creating the desired lateral “pull” on the north and east curtain walls."

The parentheses are the website's own.

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

Ok. And the 'pull' from the website controlled-demolition.com (it appears a few times), what does it mean?



The parentheses is the website's own.

Applying lateral force.

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

Applying lateral force.

So it can mean literally pulling the building down, or applying lateral force to demolish the building, to give two examples.

Do you think Larry had either of those in mind when he was speaking to his insurance company about a controlled demolition?

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

So it can mean literally pulling the building down, or applying lateral force to demolish the building, to give two examples.

Do you think Larry had either of those in mind when he was speaking to his insurance company about a controlled demolition?

Okay look at the logic here. Larry's pretending the building collapsed due to terrorism. Why would he tell the insurance company he was demolishing the building?. Y'know the people he his trying to defraud?

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

Okay look at the logic here. Larry's pretending the building collapsed due to terrorism. Why would he tell the insurance company he was demolishing the building?. Y'know the people he his trying to defraud?

I can only take Fox News' word on it.

Talk E

Di0genes wrote: »

Wow. So instead of arguing the facts of "pull it" we're shifting the goalposts.

Di0genes

Talk E wrote: »

Translation: Talk E lost that round and is running off in a new direction


You'll notice I responded to all your points as well.

Chop Chop.

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

I can only take Fox News' word on it.

It doesn't make sense. It's utterly illogical. It requires Larry Silverstein to commit mass murder and then publicly confess to it on national television.

“This building—the last to fall on 9-11—is key to all controlled-demolition theories. Its sudden fall onto its own footprint, and developer Larry Silverstein's reference on TV to telling the FDNY to "pull it," are seen as evidence that WTC7 was rigged to fall.” –911truth.org Keep in mind that this misrepresentation comes from is one of the leading organizations of the 9/11 “Truth Movement.” (This is a national organization, not to be confused with ny911truth.org, already mentioned.)

Larry Silverstein was the owner of the 47-story WTC building 7, which collapsed on 9/11, and he owns the new 52-story building 7, which opened in May, 2006 on the site of the old building. He was the leaseholder on most of the other WTC buildings, including the Twin Towers (the property is owned by The Port of New York and New Jersey Authority). He won the right to the 99-year lease only six weeks before September 11, 2001, after a long public bidding process.

During an interview in 2002 for the PBS documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, Mr. Silverstein said this about the fate of building 7 on 9/11:

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

The conspiracy theorists (hereafter referred to as “CTs”) believe that Silverstein was ordering the FDNY to demolish, or to allow to be demolished, building 7.

In my experience, the CTs are in such a hurry to get to the “pull it” phrase that they neglect to read the statement carefully. While I will provide much evidence in this paper that’s intended to convince the most hardcore CT, all that’s really necessary is to apply a bit of logic to the Silverstein statement, so I’ll start by doing that.

The setting: Larry Silverstein is being interviewed by a documentary crew from PBS. He calmly, clearly describes what happened. CTs would have us believe that Silverstein accidentally let it slip – twice, for a national TV audience – that he ordered his building to be demolished! Does that make any sense whatsoever? Can the CTs give an example of a similar “accidental confession” of a monumental crime in the history of the world? Keep in mind that if Silverstein thought he had said something wrong, he could simply have asked the crew to shoot that part again. Silverstein is a very smart guy who is in full possession of his mental faculties. He didn’t “slip up.”

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander...”
That was 32-year-veteran FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, who was in charge of the World Trade Center incident following Chief of Department Peter Ganci’s death in the collapse of the north tower. Silverstein was at home with his wife when he received the courtesy call from Chief Nigro in the afternoon.

Update

Whomever Silverstein spoke with, it wasn't Chief Nigro. As reported by "Ref" at the JREF forum, Chief Nigro did not speak with Silverstein:

"I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it." Source

“...telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire...”
That’s correct, as we will see in great detail below.
“...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'”
Let’s use some logic. Was Silverstein saying,
“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”
or was he saying,
“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”?
Be honest, CTs. Which statement makes sense, and which is completely absurd?

Next, did Larry Silverstein, a real estate developer, have the world’s largest fire department at his beck and call? Of course not. Larry Silverstein had no say in how firefighting operations in New York City were conducted. He may have liked to think that Chief Nigro was calling him for a consultation, but that idea is laughable. It was a courtesy call.

“And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Who made the decision to pull? They. The fire department. Not “Me,” not “We.” They. This is ridiculously obvious to anyone but a CT. Does the FDNY demolish buildings with explosives? No, they pull their people away from buildings that are too dangerous to be near. The “we” in “we watched the building collapse” is Silverstein and his wife. Silverstein was not at the WTC site.Now that we’ve seen what Silverstein actually said, let’s see how his statement is represented by leaders of the “Truth Movement.”

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

It doesn't make sense. It's utterly illogical.

As Spock would say, 'Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smells bad'.

Arkslippy

Not an expert, but the obvious question on the 9/11 attacks to be a conspiracy, it would have involved over a 100 people on the ground on the day on 4 or 5 sites not to have had a sudden attack of conscience, to stand by and watch 3000 people die plus however many of their own colleges, friends and Loved ones being killed.

They would also have to be briefed completely beforehand and kept their mouths shut. For a period of time beforehand and 10 years afterwards.

The whole thing would have to be done without a dry run, without anybody finding a piece of evidence before hand.

The planning would take years and there would have to be people involved who would have spoken up or out. All the conspirators would have to be approached to take part in advance and none of them said anything or objected.

There is a conspiracy alright. A conspiracy of idiocy.

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

As Spock would say, 'Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smells bad'.

Yeah....Pithy but utterly irrelevant.

Why would he incriminate himself like that?

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

Yeah....Pithy but utterly irrelevant.

A joke.

Why would he incriminate himself like that?

I've no idea.

If WTC7 was a controlled explosion, you'd have to ask why.

And the only reason I can think of is that another plane was supposed to hit it, it was rigged to explode, the plane didn't hit, and they had to demolish it anyway for fear of people finding the building was rigged.

So maybe Larry was covering his ass, in this scenario.

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

A joke.

I've no idea.

It's a huge flaw in your argument

If WTC7 was a controlled explosion, you'd have to ask why.

As you pointed out 3 other buildings were irreparably damaged and needed to be destroyed. WTC 7 was just one building that collapsed on the day.

The damage to the surrounding buildings was extensive. WTC 7 is the only one that fell.

And the only reason I can think of is that another plane was supposed to hit it, it was rigged to explode, the plane didn't hit, and they had to demolish it anyway for fear of people finding the building was rigged.

Why was it rigged? For what possible reason?

You yourself admitted the whole complex was severely damaged, a perfectly logically alternative explanation is that WTC 7 received more damage than 4,5,6 and it fell on the day.

So maybe Larry was covering his ass, in this scenario.

How was he covering his? If he admitted to his insurance company that he demolished his building, he can't claim on insurance that it was destroyed by terrorists.


You do understand the total flaw in your argument?

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

As you pointed out 3 other buildings were irreparably damaged and needed to be destroyed. WTC 7 was just one building that collapsed on the day.

Ok.

The damage to the surrounding buildings was extensive. WTC 7 is the only one that fell.

Ok.

Why was it rigged? For what possible reason?

I've just posited a theory about that.

You yourself admitted the whole complex was severely damaged, a perfectly logically alternative explanation is that WTC 7 received more damage than 4,5,6 and it fell on the day.

That is one possible explanation.

How was he covering his? If he admitted to his insurance company that he demolished his building, he can't claim on insurance that it was destroyed by terrorists.

He didn't admit to demolishing the building. The Fox reporter says he called his insurance company to discuss demolishing the building.

Which is a pretty odd thing in itself, given the time and effort that would be required.

You do understand the total flaw in your argument?

No.

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

Ok.



Ok.

Wow that's charitable

I've just posited a theory about that.

And I've pointed out the flaws in it.

That is one possible explanation.

It's a perfectly logical. Also how could the 3rd plane find a 47 story building in New York?

He didn't admit to demolishing the building. The Fox reporter says he called his insurance company to discuss demolishing the building.

Which is a pretty odd thing in itself, given the time and effort that would be required.

Maybe he didn't know the time and effort. He's a property developer he doesn't know anything about demolition?

Did you know how long it would take to prep a building for demolition before you started looking in 9/11?

No.

Okay. Afterwards Silverstein claims the building was destroyed due to a terrorist attack. However the claim from conspiracy theorists is that Silverstein admitted to demolishing the building in a interview.

If the building was pre rigged with explosives, that's a admission of foreknowledge, therefore Silverstein is complicity in mass murder. And admits to it on national television.

Do you understand how mental that is?

Talk E

Couple of other things....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs

SFRC Testimony -- Zbigniew Brzezinski
February 1, 2007
Mr. Chairman:
Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.
It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities:

1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America’s global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America’s moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.

2. Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions.
If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle” of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America’s involvement in World War II.

Talk E

Yawn... and here's another one...


In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ Arabic: نيره الصباح‎) and that she was the daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has since largely come to be regarded as wartime propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_%28testimony%29

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y

Hookah

Hookah wrote: »

So it can mean literally pulling the building down, or applying lateral force to demolish the building, to give two examples.

It means pulling a building down, by actually pulling it down with cables.
This technique was actually used on some of the other heavily damaged buildings in the WTC.

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

Wow that's charitable

You're welcome.

And I've pointed out the flaws in it.

No you hadn't.

It's a perfectly logical.

Perfect except for the building falling in freefall.

Also how could the 3rd plane find a 47 story building in New York?

Tom Tom?

Maybe he didn't know the time and effort. He's a property developer he doesn't know anything about demolition?

True.

Did you know how long it would take to prep a building for demolition before you started looking in 9/11?

Yes.

Okay. Afterwards Silverstein claims the building was destroyed due to a terrorist attack. However the claim from conspiracy theorists is that Silverstein admitted to demolishing the building in a interview.

Taking out insurance against terrorism in the months leading up to the attack + discussing controlled demolition with his insurer on the day of the attack + saying they were going to "pull it" right before the building collapses in the manner of a controlled demolition = conspiracy theory.

These things create suspicion in peoples minds.

If the building was pre rigged with explosives, that's a admission of foreknowledge, therefore Silverstein is complicity in mass murder. And admits to it on national television.

Do you understand how mental that is?

If he was complicit, and if he did slip up on national television, that would be mental. Yes.

Hookah

Hookah wrote: »

Taking out insurance against terrorism in the months leading up to the attack

He had only purchased the entire WTC site in June - July of 2001. The WTC had been the target of terrorism before.
It's only suspicious if you leave out the facts and twist it to suit an agenda.

Hookah wrote: »

+ discussing controlled demolition with his insurer on the day of the attack

He was informing himself on what his legal standing was in relation to insurance if he left the building to burn then later demolish it.
Not exactly the classiest thing to do, but only suspicious is you want it to be.
Also it doesn't make a lick of sense for him to call the insurance company and ask them this, if he was involved in a conspiracy to blow them up.
And even if this somehow did make sense and he absolutely had to talk to his insurance company about it, why did he do it on the day itself?

Hookah wrote: »

+ saying they were going to "pull it" right before the building collapses in the manner of a controlled demolition = conspiracy theory.

Again this comes from an out of context quote, that we've shown doesn't make sense in the context of a conspiracy.

And if this arises suspicion, why say it on national TV?

Hookah wrote: »

These things create suspicion in peoples minds.

Only if they want it to be suspicious and ignore the fact that none of them make any sense as part of a conspiracy.

Hookah wrote: »

If he was complicit, and if he did slip up on national television, that would be mental. Yes.

Now assuming you can somehow slip up and blurt out an entire anecdote complete with emotional content, which just happens to implicate you in the worst crime ever, why then was the TV allowed to air?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

He was informing himself on what his legal standing was in relation to insurance if he left the building to burn then later demolish it.

Source?

Now assuming you can somehow slip up and blurt out an entire anecdote complete with emotional content, which just happens to implicate you in the worst crime ever, why then was the TV allowed to air?

It was live, I believe.

Hookah

Hookah wrote: »

Source?

Source for your insistence it was part of the conspiracy?
Mine is just a much more likely, less silly explanation for why he would call his insurance company.
Now can you explain why, if there was a conspiracy, would he tell his insurance company?

Hookah wrote: »

It was live, I believe.

It wasn't. The quote was mined from here:
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/about/about_buy.html

Now can please explain why he would confess in front of a camera?
Or will you admit you cannot adequately explain it?

And what about the other points, shall I assume you'll be ignoring them since you can't address them?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Source for your insistence it was part of the conspiracy?

There is none. Just you made your conjecture read like fact.

Mine is just a much more likely, less silly explanation for why he would call his insurance company.

If you say so.

Now can you explain why, if there was a conspiracy, would he tell his insurance company?

I never stated he told his insurance compant there was a conspiracy.

It wasn't. The quote was mined from here:
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/about/about_buy.html

Cheers.

Now can please explain why he would confess in front of a camera?
Or will you admit you cannot adequately explain it?

A spokesman for Mr. Silverstein stated that the comments were in relation to firefighters in the building, yet according to FEMA 'no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY' at WTC7, and firefighters had been ordered away from the building some hours before the collapse. So the statement remains an odd one.

And what about the other points, shall I assume you'll be ignoring them since you can't address them?

While I recognise and applaud your efforts at applying conjecture from the perspective of the non-conspiracy theory, not wishing to engage in a fruitless tit-for-tat, I have chosen to ignore them, yes.

Hookah

Hookah wrote: »

There is none. Just you made your conjecture read like fact.
If you say so.

Well my explanation does not require you assume a vast conspiracy, and doesn't have nonsensical contradictions that yours does.

Hookah wrote: »

I never stated he told his insurance compant there was a conspiracy.

But you're insisting that he called his insurance to ask about a controlled demolition, implying that you believe he was referring to the secret controlled demolition.
So it's straining credibility for you to simultaneously claim that him calling his insurance is evidence of his involvement as well as claim that the insurance company couldn't figure it out.

Hookah wrote: »

A spokesman for Mr. Silverstein stated that the comments were in relation to firefighters in the building, yet according to FEMA 'no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY' at WTC7, and firefighters had been ordered away from the building some hours before the collapse. So the statement remains an odd one.

I've highlighted the important part there.
There was plenty of firefighters in WTC7 evacuating the building, inspecting the building and trying to contain the fire as evidence by the myriad of accounts of firefighters on the scene posted by Diogenes, which you've of course ignored.
And given the theme of the thread, it's incredibly likely that the 'no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY' statement has been taken out of context and twisted to suit the CT narrative.
Please provide the context for the statement.

I find it hilarious that you find the statement "odd" in this case, yet don't seem to be bothered with all the nonsensical stuff we've pointed out about the CT explanation.

Hookah wrote: »

While I recognise and applaud your efforts at conjecture from the perspective of the non-conspiracy theory, not wishing to engage in a
fruitless tit-for-tat, I have chosen to ignore them, yes.

How wonderfully handy that you don't actually have to address the points.
I mean otherwise you might have to critically examine your beliefs and see if they hold up.
And we can't have that, can we?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Well my explanation does not require you assume a vast conspiracy, and doesn't have nonsensical contradictions that yours does.

If you say so.

But you're insisting that he called his insurance to ask about a controlled demolition, implying that you believe he was referring to the secret controlled demolition.
So it's straining credibility for you to simultaneously claim that him calling his insurance is evidence of his involvement as well as claim that the insurance company couldn't figure it out.

I thought it a coincidence that he should ring up somebody talking about a controlled explosion, and then a short time later the building collapses with what looks suspiciously like a controlled explosion.

I've highlighted the important part there.
There was plenty of firefighters in WTC7 evacuating the building, inspecting the building and trying to contain the fire as evidence by the myriad of accounts of firefighters on the scene posted by Diogenes, which you've of course ignored.

In this thread? I haven't read all of it. I shall look now.

Google the other thing yourself if you want it.

How wonderfully handy that you don't actually have to address the points.
I mean otherwise you might have to critically examine your beliefs and see if they hold up.
And we can't have that, can we?

You see, I'm of the belief that a building that goes in to freefall does so because there is nothing whatsoever to support it, ie the supporting columns would all have to fail simultaneuosly in order for that to occur.

None of your conjecture about events outside of that will do anything to answer that question, so I don't see any need to enter into another protracted and ultimatley fruitless debate, with you, yet again, concerning your conjecture, which neither you or I can prove.