Advertisement
Private Profiles - an update on how they will be changing here
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.

Too many people would have to keep it a secret...

1568101119

Comments

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 23,181 Mod ✭✭✭✭ robinph


    So assuming for a second that he meant what you claim, how many people were involved in the destruction of the building? How come nobody has leaked the details? Why would they intentionally destroy it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,739 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Again, we see that conspiracy theorists like yourself misinterpret things and statements all the time. There's a perfect example of this in the last few pages in fact.

    And again, you ignore the fact that it makes no sense for him to do that. And you also ignore the vast vast majority of the actual quote to just focus on those two words.

    Again, if you want to discuss this and show that this silly conspiracy claim isn't debunked nonsense, there's a whole forum for it.

    If you don't want to discuss it, maybe don't bring up it randomly and use it as an example of how conspiracy theorists don't lie.


    And again, you ignore the question I asked that's actually on topic.

    How many people do you believe were involved in the secret demolition of WTC7?



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,053 ✭✭✭✭ Hello 2D Person Below


    I don't care about Larry Silvertstein I get get the context in which he said it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,248 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Larry Silverstein said "pull it", he meant pull the firefighters from around the building

    He clarified this. His office clarified this. Nope, conspiracy people on the internet have decided he meant "demolish the building", and they've decided he admitted it live on national television.

    All explained in this impossible to misunderstand video




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    deal a lot with civil satellite stuff...

    sorry guys, the earth is spheroid, space travel is going to be a thing, the moon landings weren't faked , and technology is far far advanced from what general Joe Shmoe has access to... and that's just the civil stuff... some of the military stuff has silly capabilities from the snippets of declassified stuff that you can find out, that probably won't be seen in general consumer markets for up to 10 years

    the space race was a dick waving exercise where the US has more knowledge and money and would have smoked the USSR in it except for, wait for it.... espionage.... people not keeping secrets

    furthermore, the reason the moon landings weren't attempted by the USSR, is because they focused on building nukes and submarines and hadn't the knowledge, or money to keep up ...

    The only reason it's hotting up again is China and India are trying to land projects there to access the dark side of the moon, for classified projects, which the US doesn't like..

    guise how they found that out....

    espionage...

    people not keeping secrets...

    I see a trend



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 756 ✭✭✭ generic_throwaway


    If someone was at a Aintree and heard a trainer talking about pulling an injured horse, would this involve setting off a controlled explosion to destroy it?

    Or is there more than one possible meaning for the term 'pulling'?



  • Registered Users Posts: 756 ✭✭✭ generic_throwaway


    This is such a clever conspiracy that nobody involved in the demolition of WTC7 (who presumably knew about the destruction of the Twin Towers too) has come forward, but like a character on Scooby Doo, the main villain accidentally blew the whole thing in front of a TV camera. OOPS!



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,316 ✭✭✭ CQD


    Well if the horse collapsed in on itself with puffs of smoke going off sequentially up its legs then maybe..

    Like, we're talking about what looked extremely like a controlled explosion..

    What is your explanation for why it fell at freefall speed?

    It was announced on the BBC before it happened..

    Anyway..it was 20 years ago..Jeez, I'm sorry for bringing it up..Even talking about it is very 2006..



  • Registered Users Posts: 756 ✭✭✭ generic_throwaway


    I love the image of the horse going up in smoke!

    Well, if what actually happened was that the floors collapsed one onto the other, sequentially, and the air getting compressed inside the building is blowing out the windows, that would look very much the same, right? Incidentally, I saw a video I had not seen before of tower 1 collapsing and you can clearly see the part above the plane impact tipping over rather than falling straight down. The stuff about them falling in their own footprint is just complete nonsense - what does that mean in a context where deris was falling on people hundreds of metres from the collapse?

    This explanation a) makes sense and b) you can see and hear it and c) does not require an elaborate conspiracy on TOP of the conspiracy we know for a fact did exist, involving hijacked planes.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,316 ✭✭✭ CQD


    And the bbc reporting on it before it fell down?



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 41,764 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    the BBC were in on it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,316 ✭✭✭ CQD


    Well, they reported that it had happened then it actually happened behind them on screen..



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 23,181 Mod ✭✭✭✭ robinph


    They had noticed the building was bulging and potentially going to collapse hours beforehand, all firefighters were moved away from it in advance. Presumably at come point a news wire states something along the lines of "WTC7 area evacuated due to it being likely to collapse" and then someone else miss reads that as "WTC7 collapsed" then it gets reported on a news channel desperate for new news about what is going on.

    Your alternative scenario happens how exactly?



  • Registered Users Posts: 756 ✭✭✭ generic_throwaway


    This has all been explained before. I can't remember the details but it was something like someone saying something into the earpiece they misunderstood (like being told that the fire fighters were being pulled from the building). It's been explained in a more plausible way than that the BBC were also in on the conspiracy.

    On the controlled explosion question, if you look at videos, you will see that controlled demoltions start at the bottom of a building. In the case of the WTC, the collapse starts at the point where the fire has weakend the steel structure (at different points in each building), and the weight of the rest of the building falling onto the floor below causes a cascading collapse. Quite different to the look of a controlled demolition beyond the superficial element of a very tall building falling down.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 41,764 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    OK, i am faced with a choice to make about which is more likely - the BBC knew/had info that the towers would fall before they actually did, or what was on screen behind them was not on-the-second live. i know which i'll plump for there.

    and that's assuming you're reporting the sequence accurately.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,316 ✭✭✭ CQD


    Whatever lads..


    **This has all been explained before..**

    Look..It's a question of cognitive bias really..Some people really don't want to have their worldview questioned..

    And it was a stream of a woman reporting on it and it happened behind her..No stream being behind or anything..

    Jesus, it's no wonder they can attempt these things when some go to such lengths to disregard any anomalies..



  • Registered Users Posts: 756 ✭✭✭ generic_throwaway


    But why are you so keen to dismiss the much bigger holes in the conspiracy narrative? I'm very happy to have my worldview questioned - but when that worldview stops being based in reality, it becomes unfalsifiable - a religion. I'm not religious.

    I don't believe in the 9/11 grand conspiracy theories because they ridiculous and full of holes. The conspiracy theorists cannot even agree with each other as there are dozens of 'explanations', all much harder to believe and with far less proof than the accepted facts. But sure, it's fun speculating on this stuff.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 23,181 Mod ✭✭✭✭ robinph


    So to attempt to answer the question set out in this thread being how many people were involved, we have at least a few reporters in the US and London along with their producers or whoever fed them the pre-approved script to read about the WTC7 collapse and they are all in on the conspiracy. They are presumably all still getting paid off to keep quiet about it though as none of them have mentioned being in on the plan as yet.

    So how many people were involved in rigging the building? Was this done before September 11th and if so didn't the staff in the building notice if being rigged for explosives and why haven't any of them mentioned anything?

    Or was it an opportune decision to destroy WTC7 only taken that day? How did they manage to get the demolition experts on site and everything rigged up whilst there was already fires happening in the building and the firefighters attempting to deal with that? How come none of those firefighters noticed anything or mentioned it since?


    Or maybe it was just a miss read news wire about the area being evacuated due to potential building collapse?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,805 ✭✭✭ fvp4


    WTC7 doesn’t make any sense as a conspiracy anyway. Why did the conspiracy bring down a building not designed to be hit by the planes? Was it to leave clues?

    (and I believe something was strange about 9/11. )



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,053 ✭✭✭✭ Hello 2D Person Below


    Yes.

    Literally.

    The Gulf of Tonkin was a literal false flag which was dismissed earlier in this thread.

    Saddam Hussein had zero weapons of mass destruction. The Yanks are still in Iraq.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 756 ✭✭✭ generic_throwaway


    Why is the USA deliberately killing its servicemen? What is the end goal?



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,053 ✭✭✭✭ Hello 2D Person Below




  • Registered Users Posts: 22,739 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    But they have all been explained before. Repeatedly.


    Conspiracy theorists usually end up whinging and running away when faced with this.


    And then when they are faced with basic questions about their own beliefs they do what you do and ignore and evade.

    Why do you do that?

    Why are you so afraid of questions?

    Isn't it hypocritical for you to whinge about people not wanting their beliefs questions while you are avoiding questions?


    For example you were asked how many people were involved in the secret demolition of wtc7.

    Could you answer this now please?



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,053 ✭✭✭✭ Hello 2D Person Below


    Lads, ye won't win this argument.

    I could make yer argument better than ye.



  • Registered Users Posts: 756 ✭✭✭ generic_throwaway


    So they can't think of *any* way to get money to these people without going through the intermediary step of starting wars and deliberately killing their own soldiers? Fraudsters routinely take hundreds of millions from large companies every year - companies that are tightly audited, have lots of internal controls and are accountable to shareholders. Kleptocracies around the world (e.g. Russia) siphon billions into the pockets of people annually.

    Yet, in the US, they can't think of how to line people's pockets without deliberately killing their own people?

    OK then.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,316 ✭✭✭ CQD


    3 people could have wired up building 7 in the weeks before when the elevators were sealed off for maintenance..



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,053 ✭✭✭✭ Hello 2D Person Below


    For Christ sake, it's why the British conquered most of the known world.

    They didn't do it for the good of their health.

    Stay out of this conversation, you're out of your depth.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 23,181 Mod ✭✭✭✭ robinph


    Not familiar with that, but a quick look at the Wiki page suggests that no US casualties from that incident, just a couple of slightly damaged boats.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

    What did the US go into Iraq for? Was it for the purpose of killing their military? Why are they still there, is that because they still want a way to kill off their young men?



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,248 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    The building didn't fall at freefall speed, it took around 14-16 seconds to fall. The internals failed first, then the outer facade fell as one

    It was misreported on the BBC. There had been chatter and speculation for hours that it was going to collapse. 24 live news makes mistakes all the time.

    If I recall you've been in discussions where all of this has been explained, so there's no excuse.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,053 ✭✭✭✭ Hello 2D Person Below


    No casualties from the War in Vietnam?????

    Piss off.



Advertisement