Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Pretty sure a paper shredder and microwave is all that is needed to destroy documents and hard drives. Blowing up a building is probably the stupidest way in the world to do that. Cleanup would have their hands all over the evidence.

Again, no explanation makes any sense whatsoever.

So because it doesn't make sense to you, there is no unexplained circumstance.
OK, thanks for your contribution.

Anyone have an intelligent and reasonable opinion of how the building collapsed 7 hours later?

Originally Posted by Neo

Anyone have an intelligent and reasonable opinion of how the building collapsed 7 hours later?

A fire. That's not my opinion though, that's just actually what happened.

Originally Posted by Neo

So because it doesn't make sense to you, there is no unexplained circumstance.
OK, thanks for your contribution.

Anyone have an intelligent and reasonable opinion of how the building collapsed 7 hours later?

The "collapse" of building 7 is just one of the many, many, many, odd things that happened that do not make logical sense.

Also, kudos for the video on the previous page (crestofwave post #7284) about how the alleged pilots of 9/11 had little no experience flying anything, let a alone a propeller driven Cesna.

Hani Hanjour could not even fly a 150 Cesna alone he was so inexperience and his skills were so poor.

As well as the others.

The ALL of the planes in the attacks made astonishing manuevers that only "Chuck Yeager" could do.

It's all in the data.

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

The "collapse" of building 7 is just one of the many, many, many, odd things that happened that do not make logical sense.

You don't make logical sense.

Haha burn!

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

The ALL of the planes in the attacks made astonishing manuevers that only "Chuck Yeager" could do.

Yeah, flying a large plane into an even larger building can't be easy and takes years and years of training...

Originally Posted by Neo

Anyone have an intelligent and reasonable opinion of how the building collapsed 7 hours later?

Remote-timer detonation. By aliens. Lizard-people aliens. Because tin-foil.

I jest obviously. But you've phrased your question incorrectly.

It should be: Anyone have an intelligent and reasonable opinion that fits nicely into the preconceived notion I have of how the building collapsed 7 hours later?

Originally Posted by redhaze

Ok that makes sense. Cheers.

Next.!

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

The ALL of the planes in the attacks made astonishing manuevers that only "Chuck Yeager" could do.

Yeah, flying a large plane into an even larger building can't be easy and takes years and years of training...

Re-read my post.

Looks at the data on the flight maneuvers.

Skilled pilots of 767s with decades of experience could not do that.

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Re-read my post.

OK...




























...it still says "The ALL of the planes in the attacks made astonishing manuevers that only "Chuck Yeager" could do.".

That's grammatically (and logically) incorrect.

Originally Posted by Neo

So because it doesn't make sense to you, there is no unexplained circumstance.
OK, thanks for your contribution.

Anyone have an intelligent and reasonable opinion of how the building collapsed 7 hours later?

Must say there's no expert like TD experts, but as an innocent bystander I understood 7 to be severely damaged from debris/fires and under threat of collapse, so the leaseholder Larry Silverstein gave the ok to pull it. If this is true, the demo guys would have moved in which accounts for the delay.

Mind you, with the likes of Salomon, IRS, USSS, SEC and other financial tenants, some influential people may have recognised a silver lining.

The terrorists made manuevers similar to that which any beginner can do in a car, if they do not value their lives. Any idiot can put their foot down on the accelerator and do amazing stuff which experts will not do because the experts :

1) Know the machine will not stand it for long before disintegrating, and

2) Value their lives and know that certain maneuvers have a high probability of causing a crash, whereas beginners either don't know or are too brainless to care about this.

These particular terrorists took flying courses and concentrated on certain aspects only. They did not bother to learn much regarding takeoff or landing. This should have caused great suspicion but didn't.
They took over the controls of a plane that had everything prepared : started, fueled-up, warmed up, taken off and flown to a certain altitude.

Originally Posted by jabir

leaseholder Larry Silverstein gave the ok to pull it.

Its been well documented that this is not at all what happened

Originally Posted by jabir

Originally Posted by Neo

So because it doesn't make sense to you, there is no unexplained circumstance.
OK, thanks for your contribution.

Anyone have an intelligent and reasonable opinion of how the building collapsed 7 hours later?

Must say there's no expert like TD experts, but as an innocent bystander I understood 7 to be severely damaged from debris/fires and under threat of collapse, so the leaseholder Larry Silverstein gave the ok to pull it. If this is true, the demo guys would have moved in which accounts for the delay.

Mind you, with the likes of Salomon, IRS, USSS, SEC and other financial tenants, some influential people may have recognised a silver lining.

Have to wonder then, were there any other buildings in the vicinity that caught fire and collapsed? Or was it just an unfortunate stroke of bad luck that the one building that did suffer such a catastrophe contained the CIA, IRS, Secret Service and several banks with close ties to the government?

Originally Posted by redhaze

some sort of conspiraracy makes zero sense at all. What would be the point?

All those buildings had to be torn down - wrong construction material - not to come once to that situation like now in London. That's why Lucky Larry had the plans already one year ago.
And the WT7 contained many discrediting documents of many companies having many interesting connections, a.o. AIG insurance of the WTC purchased just 6 weeks ago, its owner Hank, Larry's friend on the brink of bankruptcy, FBI, others...
9/11 and the Greenberg Familia By Jerry Mazza Sep 29, 2006 | 911Blogger.com
WTC Insurers Pay Out Huge Amounts to Support Official 9-11 Fairytale ? American Free Press

Originally Posted by Neo

Ok that makes sense. Cheers.

Next.!

...

Originally Posted by Neo

Have to wonder then, were there any other buildings in the vicinity that caught fire and collapsed? Or was it just an unfortunate stroke of bad luck that the one building that did suffer such a catastrophe contained the CIA, IRS, Secret Service and several banks with close ties to the government?

But you've phrased your question incorrectly.

It should be: Anyone have an intelligent and reasonable opinion that fits nicely into the preconceived notion I have of how the building collapsed 7 hours later?

See, told ya.

Originally Posted by Klondyke

And the WT7 contained many discrediting documents of many companies having many interesting connections, a.o. AIG insurance of the WTC purchased just 6 weeks ago, its owner Hank, Larry's friend on the brink of bankruptcy, FBI, others...

Classic case of putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5. You think you have 4, but the flaw in your logic is taught in Stats 101. You're confusing correlation and causation.

Originally Posted by Klondyke

AIG insurance of the WTC purchased just 6 weeks ago

Was the insurance due for renewal anyway? Was there some change in the policy?

I would assume the law requires occupied buildings to have liability cover.

Originally Posted by redhaze

Originally Posted by jabir

leaseholder Larry Silverstein gave the ok to pull it.

It's been well documented that this is not at all what happened

That is completely false Redhaze. If you watch the video in post #7291 he admits he gave the order to 'pull the building'. Now 'pull' is used in demolition terms not finance term which is what Larry is involved in.

Originally Posted by Neo

Originally Posted by jabir

Originally Posted by Neo

So because it doesn't make sense to you, there is no unexplained circumstance.
OK, thanks for your contribution.

Anyone have an intelligent and reasonable opinion of how the building collapsed 7 hours later?

Must say there's no expert like TD experts, but as an innocent bystander I understood 7 to be severely damaged from debris/fires and under threat of collapse, so the leaseholder Larry Silverstein gave the ok to pull it. If this is true, the demo guys would have moved in which accounts for the delay.

Mind you, with the likes of Salomon, IRS, USSS, SEC and other financial tenants, some influential people may have recognised a silver lining.

Have to wonder then, were there any other buildings in the vicinity that caught fire and collapsed? Or was it just an unfortunate stroke of bad luck that the one building that did suffer such a catastrophe contained the CIA, IRS, Secret Service and several banks with close ties to the government?

Wonder away, I don't have the answers, but that doesn't mean yours are better than theirs or theirs yours.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

That is completely false Redhaze. If you watch the video in post #7291 he admits he gave the order to 'pull the building'. Now 'pull' is used in demolition terms not finance term which is what Larry is involved in.

LMAO, yeah I've seen the video. Notice how this 0:27 second snippet provides zero context before or after the quote and is absurdly titled "Larry Silverstein admits WTC7 was pulled down on 9/11". As if that's even a thing, to pull down a building. Give me a break.

Watch the whole interview, not some 0:27 clip and its very obvious that he's talking about pulling the fire crew and responders away from the building because its about to collapse.

You guys will just believe whatever you want. The amount of logical gymnastics it takes to that that someone at the center of a conspiracy this big would just admit with no compunction that he gave an order to demolish the building, I mean that really is stretching it.

I love the explanation that this was somehow done for insurance money. Its like "hey, let's create the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind. Oh, hang on a second, what's that Bob? Oh, you want to collect some insurance money on Tower 7? Investment not working out for you, eh? Ok sure, why the fuck not? We're already doing this whole killing 3,000 people thing here, might as well throw that in."

Originally Posted by redhaze

Watch the whole interview, not some 0:27 clip and its very obvious that he's talking about pulling the fire crew and responders away from the building because its about to collapse.

Absolutely, definitive and end of story. Harr harr harr.

Just goes to show how gullible and lacking in critical skills many people are, eh ?

Originally Posted by redhaze

I love the explanation that this was somehow done for insurance money. Its like "hey, let's create the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind. Oh, hang on a second, what's that Bob? Oh, you want to collect some insurance money on Tower 7? Investment not working out for you, eh? Ok sure, why the fuck not? We're already doing this whole killing 3,000 people thing here, might as well throw that in."

Ahh, but that's where the likes of bENT come in with their special effects wizardry / no planes actually hit the towers stuff.

There were no victims. Just 3,000 people who agreed to pretend to be dead. Oh, and of course all their family and friends who were in on the ruse too. Basically anyone who'd ever met them:

- Hi Fred, how the hell have you been!?
- Err, good thanks
- Gee I haven't seen you for, how long, about 16 or 17 years??
- ...
- Yeah, since the World Trad... Hey wait a minute! WTF!? You died in those attacks!!
- Errm, insurance scam! Soz, lol!