In Plane Site 9/11 Wow...just Wow.

[fraij da 5 11]

On one hand you have:

A) News organizations received a SCRIPT of what was GOING to happen from someone obviously who was a part of the plan to destroy the WTC... Which in turn MAKES EVERYONE IN THE NEWS AN ACCOMPLICE TO THE FACT.

And on the other hand you have:

B) A FOREIGN news organization gets bad info OR misinterprets info and makes a mistake reporting that a building that WAS AT THAT TIME NEARING COLLAPSE from the fire that it was engulfed in it had already fallen 20 minutes early.




I mean I just have to know if you REALLY ask yourself which of those scenarios is more likely, do you REALLY come to the conclusion that its A? Really? Really really? Man I really hope not.

 

[fraij da 5 11]

On one hand you have:

A) News organizations received a SCRIPT of what was GOING to happen from someone obviously who was a part of the plan to destroy the WTC... Which in turn MAKES EVERYONE IN THE NEWS AN ACCOMPLICE TO THE FACT.

And on the other hand you have:

B) A FOREIGN news organization gets bad info OR misinterprets info and makes a mistake reporting that a building that WAS AT THAT TIME NEARING COLLAPSE from the fire that it was engulfed in it had already fallen 20 minutes early.




I mean I just have to know if you REALLY ask yourself which of those scenarios is more likely, do you REALLY come to the conclusion that its A? Really? Really really? Man I really hope not.

 

[whywesteppin]

Can someone set me straight. Which of the following are you guys endorsing:

1. Are we trying to say that some powers-that-be let things unfold and/or encouraged terrorists through various methods because it served their interests? i.e. not acting on evidence that al-qaeda was plotting 9-11?

2. Or are we trying to say that the U.S. staged the whole thing? i.e. rigged explosives, coordinated with media sources, targeted strategic buildings (in what is now a 2-headed mission -- first to create pretense for war in the middle east, second to cover up the paper trail of corrupt corporations working in those buildings because, you know, that's easier that a paper shredder), created and framed a straw man terrorist organization, etc.?

I need to know which it is. Because #2 is a lot different than #1. And it's easier to find random facts and coincidences to support #2 because it's much more encompassing, but implies a much broader and deeper conspiracy than #1. If what you're endorsing is #1, then you can't use the random facts and coincidences that support #2 to support your arguments.

 

[whywesteppin]

Can someone set me straight. Which of the following are you guys endorsing:

1. Are we trying to say that some powers-that-be let things unfold and/or encouraged terrorists through various methods because it served their interests? i.e. not acting on evidence that al-qaeda was plotting 9-11?

2. Or are we trying to say that the U.S. staged the whole thing? i.e. rigged explosives, coordinated with media sources, targeted strategic buildings (in what is now a 2-headed mission -- first to create pretense for war in the middle east, second to cover up the paper trail of corrupt corporations working in those buildings because, you know, that's easier that a paper shredder), created and framed a straw man terrorist organization, etc.?

I need to know which it is. Because #2 is a lot different than #1. And it's easier to find random facts and coincidences to support #2 because it's much more encompassing, but implies a much broader and deeper conspiracy than #1. If what you're endorsing is #1, then you can't use the random facts and coincidences that support #2 to support your arguments.

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by fraij da 5 11

On one hand you have:

A) News organizations received a SCRIPT of what was GOING to happen from someone obviously who was a part of the plan to destroy the WTC... Which in turn MAKES EVERYONE IN THE NEWS AN ACCOMPLICE TO THE FACT.

And on the other hand you have:

B) A FOREIGN news organization gets bad info OR misinterprets info and makes a mistake reporting that a building that WAS AT THAT TIME NEARING COLLAPSE from the fire that it was engulfed in it had already fallen 20 minutes early.




I mean I just have to know if you REALLY ask yourself which of those scenarios is more likely, do you REALLY come to the conclusion that its A? Really? Really really? Man I really hope not.

The news companies all feed from the main news brokers. The stories filter out from their to the rest of the public.
REUTERS

Associated Press

there is very little news reporting going on. It's a lot of story telling going on (except local news which still can be manipulated)

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by fraij da 5 11

On one hand you have:

A) News organizations received a SCRIPT of what was GOING to happen from someone obviously who was a part of the plan to destroy the WTC... Which in turn MAKES EVERYONE IN THE NEWS AN ACCOMPLICE TO THE FACT.

And on the other hand you have:

B) A FOREIGN news organization gets bad info OR misinterprets info and makes a mistake reporting that a building that WAS AT THAT TIME NEARING COLLAPSE from the fire that it was engulfed in it had already fallen 20 minutes early.




I mean I just have to know if you REALLY ask yourself which of those scenarios is more likely, do you REALLY come to the conclusion that its A? Really? Really really? Man I really hope not.

The news companies all feed from the main news brokers. The stories filter out from their to the rest of the public.
REUTERS

Associated Press

there is very little news reporting going on. It's a lot of story telling going on (except local news which still can be manipulated)

 

[james earl zones]

Originally Posted by fraij da 5 11

Originally Posted by James Earl Zones

Originally Posted by AirForce1King

So I been sitting here crying for the last hour or so as I cycle through 9/11 clips on YouTube. Something that just caught my eye for the first time is WTC 7. How/Why exactly did this building fall again? It wasn't even hit by a plane or anything...

It was "pulled". Also youtube "tower 7 BBC".

Not only was it all planned by the Government, but they tipped off all the news agencies including BRITISH TV just which buildings were coming down next.

So in this thread I learned that it "would only take a couple people in positions of authority" to plan and execute this entire thing AND BBC has some priiiiiiiiiiiiiiime inside information.

YES!!! IT MAKES SENSE!!!!!11  The government gave them a script of just what was going to go down and those big British dummies spoiled the fun and read it too early!!! But WAIT! Wouldn't that mean that the entire PRESS would be in on the conspiracy? Jeez thats loony right?  Naw not loony, because theres no way that the press would just be able too look at the buildings falling and report it for themselves, they would have had to have the rough draft and outline word to 4th grade of what was about to go down in order to report it. 

I mean theres no way that 20 minutes before the collapse they caught wind from a source that the building was raging with fire and nearing collapse, then they misreported what the source had informed... Not possible, actually this is clearrrrly the more unlikely scenario.

First of all, all MAJOR new outlets are connected. Their info comes from the same place/places. Second, the owner of the building himself said "pull it". His words, not mine. So what more do you want?

My position on this is that everything was allowed to happen. The CIA knew, members of our government knew, and Mossad had a lot to do with it.

 

[james earl zones]

Originally Posted by fraij da 5 11

Originally Posted by James Earl Zones

Originally Posted by AirForce1King

So I been sitting here crying for the last hour or so as I cycle through 9/11 clips on YouTube. Something that just caught my eye for the first time is WTC 7. How/Why exactly did this building fall again? It wasn't even hit by a plane or anything...

It was "pulled". Also youtube "tower 7 BBC".

Not only was it all planned by the Government, but they tipped off all the news agencies including BRITISH TV just which buildings were coming down next.

So in this thread I learned that it "would only take a couple people in positions of authority" to plan and execute this entire thing AND BBC has some priiiiiiiiiiiiiiime inside information.

YES!!! IT MAKES SENSE!!!!!11  The government gave them a script of just what was going to go down and those big British dummies spoiled the fun and read it too early!!! But WAIT! Wouldn't that mean that the entire PRESS would be in on the conspiracy? Jeez thats loony right?  Naw not loony, because theres no way that the press would just be able too look at the buildings falling and report it for themselves, they would have had to have the rough draft and outline word to 4th grade of what was about to go down in order to report it. 

I mean theres no way that 20 minutes before the collapse they caught wind from a source that the building was raging with fire and nearing collapse, then they misreported what the source had informed... Not possible, actually this is clearrrrly the more unlikely scenario.

First of all, all MAJOR new outlets are connected. Their info comes from the same place/places. Second, the owner of the building himself said "pull it". His words, not mine. So what more do you want?

My position on this is that everything was allowed to happen. The CIA knew, members of our government knew, and Mossad had a lot to do with it.

 

[fraij da 5 11]

So now news agencies don't have their own sources?

Now REUTERS and the AP are a part of the conspiracy?

 

[fraij da 5 11]

So now news agencies don't have their own sources?

Now REUTERS and the AP are a part of the conspiracy?

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by fraij da 5 11

On one hand you have:

A) News organizations received a SCRIPT of what was GOING to happen from someone obviously who was a part of the plan to destroy the WTC... Which in turn MAKES EVERYONE IN THE NEWS AN ACCOMPLICE TO THE FACT.

And on the other hand you have:

B) A FOREIGN news organization gets bad info OR misinterprets info and makes a mistake reporting that a building that WAS AT THAT TIME NEARING COLLAPSE from the fire that it was engulfed in it had already fallen 20 minutes early.




I mean I just have to know if you REALLY ask yourself which of those scenarios is more likely, do you REALLY come to the conclusion that its A? Really? Really really? Man I really hope not.

A is completely flawed logic. If that would be the case ( i don't believe it is) but lets posit that it is. How would they be accomplices? At best , they'd be unwitting accomplices. Dupes. 
They may have mis-interpreted the info but again, how do you misinterpret it when you have a live feed. How does that bad info get passed along in the first place? 

The msot likely scenario, couple with what Larry Silverstein said, is that the decision was made to "pull" WTC 7 because the fire couldn't be contained and a source passed that a long to their reporters. They jumped the gun at that point. Why can't the feds trust the people enough to tell them that since the fire couldn't be contained, they'd rather collapse the building than let it burn for day or weeks? Seems reasonable to me if that's what went down. Why lie? Why is it so important to hide that fact?  The same way that they lied about shooting down flight 93. It was headed for the White House and the ANG shot it down. Nothing wrong with that but why lie? 

It's the compulsive lying that's the problem. 

This isn't even the most important aspect though. How did WTC 7 get to the point of collapse in the first place? 

Structural damage from falling debris is the official story. Idk seems odd to me. 

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by fraij da 5 11

On one hand you have:

A) News organizations received a SCRIPT of what was GOING to happen from someone obviously who was a part of the plan to destroy the WTC... Which in turn MAKES EVERYONE IN THE NEWS AN ACCOMPLICE TO THE FACT.

And on the other hand you have:

B) A FOREIGN news organization gets bad info OR misinterprets info and makes a mistake reporting that a building that WAS AT THAT TIME NEARING COLLAPSE from the fire that it was engulfed in it had already fallen 20 minutes early.




I mean I just have to know if you REALLY ask yourself which of those scenarios is more likely, do you REALLY come to the conclusion that its A? Really? Really really? Man I really hope not.

A is completely flawed logic. If that would be the case ( i don't believe it is) but lets posit that it is. How would they be accomplices? At best , they'd be unwitting accomplices. Dupes. 
They may have mis-interpreted the info but again, how do you misinterpret it when you have a live feed. How does that bad info get passed along in the first place? 

The msot likely scenario, couple with what Larry Silverstein said, is that the decision was made to "pull" WTC 7 because the fire couldn't be contained and a source passed that a long to their reporters. They jumped the gun at that point. Why can't the feds trust the people enough to tell them that since the fire couldn't be contained, they'd rather collapse the building than let it burn for day or weeks? Seems reasonable to me if that's what went down. Why lie? Why is it so important to hide that fact?  The same way that they lied about shooting down flight 93. It was headed for the White House and the ANG shot it down. Nothing wrong with that but why lie? 

It's the compulsive lying that's the problem. 

This isn't even the most important aspect though. How did WTC 7 get to the point of collapse in the first place? 

Structural damage from falling debris is the official story. Idk seems odd to me. 

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

There are arguments on both sides of the issue. The fact is, the U.S. government is never going to come out and admit to being at fault for this. It isn't likely that we will know.

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

There are arguments on both sides of the issue. The fact is, the U.S. government is never going to come out and admit to being at fault for this. It isn't likely that we will know.

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

This isn't even the most important aspect though. How did WTC 7 get to the point of collapse in the first place? 

Structural damage from falling debris is the official story. Idk seems odd to me. 


Again, you have to consider the amount of debris that can come from a building that is 1300+ feet tall. The dust cloud alone engulfed BLOCKS. I'm assuming you've seen the videos. It shouldn't be that hard to wrap your head around. 

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

This isn't even the most important aspect though. How did WTC 7 get to the point of collapse in the first place? 

Structural damage from falling debris is the official story. Idk seems odd to me. 


Again, you have to consider the amount of debris that can come from a building that is 1300+ feet tall. The dust cloud alone engulfed BLOCKS. I'm assuming you've seen the videos. It shouldn't be that hard to wrap your head around. 

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

This isn't even the most important aspect though. How did WTC 7 get to the point of collapse in the first place? 

Structural damage from falling debris is the official story. Idk seems odd to me. 

Again, you have to consider the amount of debris that can come from a building that is 1300+ feet tall. The dust cloud alone engulfed BLOCKS. I'm assuming you've seen the videos. It shouldn't be that hard to wrap your head around. 
Structural damage is fine. Structural damage leading to a multi story steel building collapsing is not fine. Other buildings in the area took lots of damage (more than WTC 7 actually) as well and they're still standing. They claimed 2 huge oil storage tanks stored underground exploded, which caused the massive fires.  Oil storage tanks are underground for a reason, no? 
Couple that with what Silverstein said , what the witnesses inside WTC heard, and the importance of WTC in terms of warehousing of certain documents (prior to the tanks exploding) and the official story doesn't add up. You have to take all of the evidence in together. 

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

This isn't even the most important aspect though. How did WTC 7 get to the point of collapse in the first place? 

Structural damage from falling debris is the official story. Idk seems odd to me. 

Again, you have to consider the amount of debris that can come from a building that is 1300+ feet tall. The dust cloud alone engulfed BLOCKS. I'm assuming you've seen the videos. It shouldn't be that hard to wrap your head around. 
Structural damage is fine. Structural damage leading to a multi story steel building collapsing is not fine. Other buildings in the area took lots of damage (more than WTC 7 actually) as well and they're still standing. They claimed 2 huge oil storage tanks stored underground exploded, which caused the massive fires.  Oil storage tanks are underground for a reason, no? 
Couple that with what Silverstein said , what the witnesses inside WTC heard, and the importance of WTC in terms of warehousing of certain documents (prior to the tanks exploding) and the official story doesn't add up. You have to take all of the evidence in together. 

 

[rod301]

The Pentagon Part Is Some What Believable But I Still Dont Believe That With As Much Stuff That Floats Around On The Internet These Days...

My Question Is...

Why Would The United States "Plan" This.?
Why Would They Want To See Innocent Lives Lost For No Reason.?
If It Was Planned Then Where Did All Those People On The Planes Come From.?


I Jus Cant See The Government Saying "Hey, Lets Hire A Bunch Of Terrorist To Fly Planes Into Buildings For No Reason...".  This Wasnot Planned. Stop Believing Everything You See On The Internet... Half Of This Stuff Is Made Up By People Who Dont Know Anything More Than You Yourself Do... It Is A Conspiracy Theory... It Could Have Happend... Yes. But The Likely Hood Of That Happening Is Jus Not Enough To Convince Me... So Many Dudes Died Out There Attempting To Rescue Those People In The Buildings... Innocent Lives...

Jus Like Osama Aint Dead... Jus Like Pac Aint Dead... Jus Like MJ Aint Dead.

 

[rod301]

The Pentagon Part Is Some What Believable But I Still Dont Believe That With As Much Stuff That Floats Around On The Internet These Days...

My Question Is...

Why Would The United States "Plan" This.?
Why Would They Want To See Innocent Lives Lost For No Reason.?
If It Was Planned Then Where Did All Those People On The Planes Come From.?


I Jus Cant See The Government Saying "Hey, Lets Hire A Bunch Of Terrorist To Fly Planes Into Buildings For No Reason...".  This Wasnot Planned. Stop Believing Everything You See On The Internet... Half Of This Stuff Is Made Up By People Who Dont Know Anything More Than You Yourself Do... It Is A Conspiracy Theory... It Could Have Happend... Yes. But The Likely Hood Of That Happening Is Jus Not Enough To Convince Me... So Many Dudes Died Out There Attempting To Rescue Those People In The Buildings... Innocent Lives...

Jus Like Osama Aint Dead... Jus Like Pac Aint Dead... Jus Like MJ Aint Dead.

 

[deleted]

I wish I was smart enough to be a conspiracy theorist.

 

[deleted]

I wish I was smart enough to be a conspiracy theorist.

 

[superdupercudi]

Has anyone read through the Popular Mechanics breakdown of the myths? - http://www.popularmechani...gy/military/news/1227842

Don't feel like reading through 12 pages of this

 

[superdupercudi]

Has anyone read through the Popular Mechanics breakdown of the myths? - http://www.popularmechani...gy/military/news/1227842

Don't feel like reading through 12 pages of this

 

[tonyreali]

Originally Posted by Rod301

The Pentagon Part Is Some What Believable But I Still Dont Believe That With As Much Stuff That Floats Around On The Internet These Days...

My Question Is...

Why Would The United States "Plan" This.?
Why Would They Want To See Innocent Lives Lost For No Reason.?
If It Was Planned Then Where Did All Those People On The Planes Come From.?


I Jus Cant See The Government Saying "Hey, Lets Hire A Bunch Of Terrorist To Fly Planes Into Buildings For No Reason...".  This Wasnot Planned. Stop Believing Everything You See On The Internet... Half Of This Stuff Is Made Up By People Who Dont Know Anything More Than You Yourself Do... It Is A Conspiracy Theory... It Could Have Happend... Yes. But The Likely Hood Of That Happening Is Jus Not Enough To Convince Me... So Many Dudes Died Out There Attempting To Rescue Those People In The Buildings... Innocent Lives...

Jus Like Osama Aint Dead... Jus Like Pac Aint Dead... Jus Like MJ Aint Dead.

Technically what the media told us about 9/11 is a Theory as well.

I'm far from a conspiracy theorist, but I find it hard to believe that certain United States officials did not have anything to do with this.