Guys the US government would NEVER do a false flag operation..

Here's a nice PDF that PROVES that they would NEVER do something like that, I Suggest reading it and enlightening yourself.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20...northwoods.pdf

It clearly shows they always tell the truth.

Never say never. We are dealing with very clever people who can and will lie to its people and then ship them off to war to die for nothing in the name of a false war on terror and lies about weapons of mass destruction. Now they are talking about war with Iran and Pakistan and back we are trapped in the loop of fear and trauma based brainwashing.

That is just an explanation you have come up with, I have not seen any evidence supporting it.

I knew you'd crawl in and start doubletalking.....

McVeigh used a truck filled with fertilizer. There's a difference between a brute force explosion at the base of building, and controlled demolition. Also, the federal building did not come down -- only a section was blown out.

If anything, you're hurting the conspiracy nuts argument by implying a large building CAN be brought down by damage at the base of the structure.

Conspiracy nutjobs:

Final Report - Nov. 20, 2008 - NIST Report on WTC 7 Collapse - http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

Now please stop spouting off your crap about fires never bringing down similar buildings or someone said to "pull it" unless you can show how the analysis and contributions from the hundreds of experts is bogus.

Exactly. rigging a building for CD is a monumental task, even in an abandoned building, and takes weeks to months, with conspicuous people and equipment in plain view. I'm sorry, but pulling down a building doesn't involve a few ninjas throwing some bombs behind plants and desks.

These nutjobs either don't know about this, or are just so caught up in their hatred for the government, that they tune it out.

Final Report - Nov. 20, 2008 - NIST Report on WTC 7 Collapse - http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

This is so true, and we're just talking about WTC7(which is pretty big).

But what about the twin towers? The square footage of those two buildings is 6 times bigger than the largest controlled demo ever recorded. Even if we could get past WTC being rigged, it would be so much more difficult to swallow the same story for the twin towers.

Unfortunately that's far too advanced for most of the conspiracy crowd to understand. You have to remember, that many of them don't even understand Inertia.


How many times have I heard someone say "But the building fell straight down!"? Which way should a building fall when it begins to collapse at the top and when not being acted upon by outside forces? Of course it could only fall one way and that's straight down.

You can't convince people like Kandah of anything using facts or expert opinion. Remember, in his mind most of the population is suffering from mass hypnosis and the World is right on the edge of being run by a one World shadow government. He will always discount the opinions of many experts as being part of the conspiracy and instead hold dear to the opinions of the odd person that disagrees. The descenters of course being enlightened and seeing through the mass hypnosis like Kandah does.

Pointless to try and convince him of anything. First because you can't change his mind, and secondly because people like Kandah are insignificant. They have no pull in any area of society and are rarely ever taken seriously by anyone other than other subscribers of their specific brand of crazy. This causes frustration and only serves as further proof that the rest of the World is indeed out to get them.

The conspiracy theory...

the facts..

It?s often claimed that WTC7 suffered no significant damage from the collapse of the towers. However, some 9/11 photos show debris that appears to be heading for the skyscraper (the light-brown building in the shot below)..

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Hit1.jpg

The angle of shot makes it difficult to say where that might hit, but reports from the scene do suggest significant damage.

Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn?t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/norman.html

A NIST photo may expand on that damage ?at the edge of the south face?.
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Corner.jpg

Page 17
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%...se%20Final.pdf

Chris Boyle expands on what he saw when he viewed the south side, not just the corner.

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...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.

Firehouse: 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 throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about 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. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9.../gz/boyle.html

Another report talks of damage that suggested collapse was a real possibility:

...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.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110462.PDF

Fire chief Daniel Nigro says further assessment of the damage indicated that it was severe:

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/e...1521846767-634

Another fireman reported damage that progressed as the day wore on.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...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 collapse. 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: 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.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html

So why wasn?t this damage photographed, ask people like David Ray Griffin (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html)? If they were to show you the smoke pouring from every floor of the building, then that may make it obvious... But it could also make you question the ?small and limited? fires idea, which is why shots like this aren?t shown so very often.
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7MoreSmoke.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/7wtc.jpg

And recently a thread at the Democratic Underground message board revealed a new TV clip showing damage high on the the south face of WTC7:

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/ZafarWTC7.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/wtc7groove1.jpg
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/wtc7groove1.jpg

You've never heard of people completely untrained as pilots landing planes and being coached by the tower on what to do? Landing is the hardest part and there have been many cases of planes being landed in emergencies that way. As someone that has quite a few numbers of cockpit time in small planes, I can tell you its not impossible at all. Landings and takeoffs are the hard part.

here's why the building collapsed straight down-

First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air so it can implode onto itself.

Second, there is no lateral load- there was no force applied to sufficiently move the center of gravity such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure.

Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity.

To summarize all of these points, a 200,000+ t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than straight down.

I tried explaining that to him earlier in this thread but in simpler terms with a practical example using an aluminum can. He didn't get it.

yah, i'm with ya, i just figured i'd bombard this thread with facts so as to point out that kandah is exactly like the people he points his finger at- closed minded and oblivious to reality.

he goes around saying prove me wrong but hasn't shown proof of anything.

From the Best Page in the Universe:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

http://i33.tinypic.com/nxsbc.gif

http://i36.tinypic.com/3443ygh.gif

http://i33.tinypic.com/3508269.gif

http://i35.tinypic.com/2whqzo2.gif

http://i37.tinypic.com/2a4zul3.gif

http://i37.tinypic.com/4g0qz9.gif

http://i33.tinypic.com/mjskfp.gif

NIST 'conclusion' paper does not make sense and does not explain many things that have been questioned. Here is some reading for you http://georgewashington2.blogspot.co...out-wtc-7.html.

hey, i've done my research.

you asked for an explanation, i gave you one + pictures + physics + testimony from people there. and as expected, you can't acknoweldge it or the fact that you could be wrong. that's childish, as you always are.

moreover, as a citizen of the united states i can say that if there were a line of people who questioned their government i would be at the front. that's why i can say with complete certainty our government is incapable of pulling off a conspiracy of this magnitude.

you should maybe live here for awhile or at least have visited here maybe once before you point your finger and claim we are all sheep and you are the one with the inside scoop based on youtube videos of course.

Here is a good question...


Why hasn't anybody been formally charged with murder 2,974 people?

Who is responsible?

Who acted negligible?

Why would you need "countless people" to do that? If Al Qaida did it, they did it with 20 people. And if they could keep it a secret while planning why wouldn’t some other group be able to do the same?

I am pretty sure CIA and FBI knew about the attack before it happened but I don't know if they actually helped. It wouldn't surprise me if they did. But to say it is impossible because it would take "countless people" to plan and execute the plan is stupid. Again, if Al Qaida could do it with 20 people why wouldn't some other group be able to do the same thing?

I'm not going to get into the physics and conspiracy theories, but I do have a question. Someone brought this up earlier but it wasn't addressed.

I saw, on PBS, Larry Silverstein (WTC lease holder) say that a decision was made to "pull it" (it being WTC7) and that they "watched the building fall." I have also seen video of workers on the ground the day of the attacks saying they were "getting ready to pull it." You can easily find these videos on youtube, etc. They aren't secret. So were Larry Silverstein and these workers lying, or were they dropped on their heads as babies, or what? How have these statements been reconciled with the report which states that WTC7 collapsed because of the fire and structural damage?

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.

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 I get it ! Finally.
Sylvester Stallone from the 9th and 10th floor committed demolition suicide because the 24th and 25th floor found that the 22nd, 26th, 27th had the subprime loans proof in their safe and the guy from Fuel storage on 1st. told that to the guys at 23rd and they told it back to 9th that reserved the 14th to 17th for NWO and somewhere the word bailout got mixed up in a blowout and the shit hit fan thru 46th mechanic dept. down...
Now it starts to make sense :1orglaugh

The fact remains the entire event costs too many lives and had massive consequences for the world as we know it, whoever was responsible :2 cents:

Never seen those videos. Very interesting

Well I never thought it was a "slip up" or that the guy was necessarily physically near or at WTC7, and I never thought he had control of the fire department. I guess it does answer the question of how people have reconciled Silverstein's statement with the report, but I'm not sure that I buy the explanation that the "it" referred to firefighters. It seems pretty clear that the first part of the statement goes along with the second... they made the decision, we watched the building collapse. I'm not making any claims as to the truth of what happened because I don't know, but I think my (and many others') interpretation of the statement is reasonable and logical. Whether the statement was true or accurate is another question. It wasn't until well after I originally watched the PBS show that I found out that it was claimed WTC WASN'T brought down on purpose. It seemed like accepted fact since they never said anything to contradict it.

Anyway, I'm not one of these "tin hat" people who think Georgie Boy planned the whole thing, but I do think there are some things we haven't been told. Thanks for the info.

i'm sure if you were in that position that day every word you stated would of been clear, concise and accurate.

It makes perfect sense. Before you start talking about "other buildings that should have collapsed", you need to do a detailed study into what buildings were in the area, how they were effected by the fall of the two towers, and which buildings did physically collapse. We talk about the two towers often and about WTC7, but never about the other buildings. Did you not see the footage of the lower sections of the towers - The parking garages and subway tunnels, the stores and everything else down there?

Hell, for all we know, WTC 7 fell because of the damage that was ten stories underground caused by the WTC towers falling.

Actually, I would make sure of it. I certainly wouldn't want to put my foot in my mouth on PBS regarding something as serious as this, you know? But that being said, I don't know anything about Silverstein. Maybe he was horribly broken up about things and could barely think straight. Maybe he was drunk. Maybe he's a total idiot. Maybe the interviewer was a total idiot. I have no idea. I only know what he said. I would be interested to know what he says about it now.

What's so interesting about the Tenants? The only interesting one is the CIA, and it's pretty clear that the CIA isn't going to keep anything of interest in a local field office. The CIA operates under cover; I'm sure they have dozens of offices in NYC alone that no one knows about.

Hey Shit for brains... Your in Scandinavia. Were you ever in The WTC?. My husband and I use to go through WTC daily to work. We use to walk past WTC 7 daily....

God damn your a retard.

Amazing that all three of these towers fell with a free-falling velocity. It's like every bit of supporting structure, in every floor, had damage to it. No time for a floor to fall, pause while supporting beams break, bend or whatever, then fall to another floor.

So with this logic, one could walk by a Honda service center everyday, then be able to diagnose an issue with a broke down civic.

:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Ok, let's just humor you for a second and say that you MIGHT be right.

WTF are you going to do about it?

Everyone has "facts", so this argument will never end. Maybe it was an inside job. Maybe we knew about it but let it happen, who knows.

The only thing I do know, is how amazing it is to see three buildings fall down so neatly. I'm also amazed at how punctual NORAD was at saying, "Hey guys, there is a plane that went way off course, and is now flipping a bitch and going to NYC, sup?"

You totally missed the point. The buildings around the 2 WTC towers were used as counter weights. When you take away the the 2 towers, the ground became unstable and the balance was radically changed. Its a basic physics principal.

And BTW, Honda's are great cars. Ive never had any real problems with my 2 CRVs.

wtf is so amazing einstein?

i like the multiquote button

But the towers weren't 'taken away'.

multiquote is fun

Anti conspiracy theorists... conspiracy theorists.. I can't decide who I hate more.

Some questions from someone in the middle...

1. Why do you anti conspiracy theorists say shit like "how could the government keep it a secret between thousands of people" when they think a group of a handful of afganis planned it by themselves and did it? You are skewing your arguments even further than the tinfoil hatters.

Take all the information with a grain of rice, don't dismiss the idea because of crazy 1 sided arguments.

At the VERY LEAST our government CREATED AND TRAINED Bin Laden just like they did SADAM and tons of people to KILL millions. If you firmly believe that Bin Laden did this, the US is still responsible.

I'm sure it's not as complicated as some make it seem.

The gov could have also straight up "let it happen".

They know about it, they calculate the good for them vs the bad and let it through. Everyone's scared, willing to let their prez invade whatever he wants for a bit, make billions from the war. Good money.

all id like to say on this is to ask you to seek out the information yourself

many here could point you to water...but i think finding the info on your own is best

look into who was being investigated out of some of those offices.

I think a lot of people just can't even understand what the hell you are saying if you haven't "picked a side."

Look it's simple.

What did the goverment know before hand, contribute to or otherwise play a party to on 9/11? You're right we don't know. I can not prove the government had nothing to do with any more than you can prove the government did. On this point, it's very possible of not probably that there is information the public does not yet or may never know. So we agree, it's possible there was a conspiracy beyond 20 Saudis.

What's not in dispute really is what caused the towers and WTC7 to fall. Neither is there any real dispute about what hit the Pentagon, it was a commercial plane full of people. Period.

The first point has nothing to do with the second. When you mix the two arguments you just make yourself look foolish. Stick to what is in dispute, not what is pretty cut and dry to all but a handful of Internet weirdos.

Freakfish was behind it..he has too much inside knowledge!

I'm glad there's no shortage of retarded people who keep bringing this up.

Not trying to choose sides, but: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=281_1226435789

But i DO think theres a bit more then just some arabs flying around.

The problem as I see it with the endless speculation about what brought down the WTCs, or did a plane hit the Pentagon, and other 911 theories is that they are designed in essence to prevent any proper discussion about what actually happened on 911. 911 Truthers will spend eternity discussing and arguing about every unknown aspect of 911, speculating and theorizing about virtually everything, except the known facts.

I have yet to see a discussion by 911 Truthers about the traceable money sent from the Pakistani security services to Mohammed Atta before the 911 attacks, but they will squabble and argue endlessly about structural engineering, melting point of steel, controlled demolitions, physics, or anything else except the facts.

The same goes for the Pentagon attack. The 911 Truth movement claims there was not a plane involved and place the blame on a cruise missile, black flag operation, and Dick Cheney. Clearly, it is beyond any stretch of the imagination to think that US military personnel would launch an attack on their own unarmed people. Dozens of US military personnel would have had to be involved in the firing of a cruise missile against the Pentagon, and it is highly unlikely that they would be complicit in the murder of their compatriot's. But still the 911 truthers will argue that a plane did not hit the Pentagon, a cruise missile hit it because they know so much about puncture holes, the intensity of jet fuel burning versus high explosives, trajectory, aviation, and all other specialized subjects they are experts on.