9/11 Attacks

Axe Rake

Di0genes wrote: »

Funny that's the second time Shamir has come up today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-israel-shamir-russia-scandinavia

A disturbing anti semite and holocaust denier.

The site is only hosting the article and has nothing to do with it otherwise. I could have posted a download link to the article on Scribd but you need an account there to download it.

Di0genes

Axe Rake wrote: »

The site is only hosting the article and has nothing to do with it otherwise. I could have posted a download link to the article on Scribd but you need an account there to download it.

Who wrote the piece then?

Axe Rake

Di0genes wrote: »

Who wrote the piece then?

Why don't you read the article... it's all there including author, although it is probably a pseudonym.

Di0genes

Axe Rake wrote: »

Why don't you read the article... it's all there including author, although it is probably a pseudonym.

It's 59 pages, it's one am, and unless you can give me a authors name I shan't bother.

Axe Rake

Di0genes wrote: »

It's 59 pages, it's one am, and unless you can give me a authors name I shan't bother.

Ignorance is bliss :rolleyes:

gibraltar

Axe Rake wrote: »

Ignorance is bliss :rolleyes:

Well you must be very happy, as you have stated - you are ignorant of who wrote the article.:rolleyes:

Axe Rake wrote: »

Why don't you read the article... it's all there including author, although it is probably a pseudonym.

humanji

Cut out the bickering.

fliball123

Di0genes wrote: »

Completely the opposite. The building was on fire, and in serious danger of collapse. Reports of the buildings instability from fire fighters, came throughout the day




http://tinyurl.com/g8c6y






http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt



http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt



http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt



http://www.webcitation.org/5IuRwM61d

Throughout the day reports surfaced that WTC 7 was about to collapse, because the building was on fire, and had huge chunks of it's structure missing!

Incidently what's the alternative conspiracy theory? That the NWO had a script for the day's events and the BBC jumped the gun?

Exactly how many people do you suppose are in on this conspiracy theory!



Snort.




And this is relevant to Bin Laden how?

But the reporter clearly states that building 7 has collapsed and it was right behind her head...something stinks

Penn

fliball123 wrote: »

But the reporter clearly states that building 7 has collapsed and it was right behind her head...something stinks

Her reporting?

What's important to remember is that this wasn't a report from some New York news station, or even an American one. This was BBC News. I doubt that the reporter or other people on her team would have been able to accurately recognize WTC7 from that distance. And even then, if the theory is that they had prior knowledge of WTC7 collapsing, wouldn't they have waited until it did before reporting it?

On a day like 9/11, false information, reports, and general mistakes would have been everywhere. Chinese whispers and all that

fliball123

Barrington wrote: »

Her reporting?

What's important to remember is that this wasn't a report from some New York news station, or even an American one. This was BBC News. I doubt that the reporter or other people on her team would have been able to accurately recognize WTC7 from that distance. And even then, if the theory is that they had prior knowledge of WTC7 collapsing, wouldn't they have waited until it did before reporting it?

On a day like 9/11, false information, reports, and general mistakes would have been everywhere. Chinese whispers and all that

Hang on it wasnt just bbc as posted way back in this thread a link that a US station stated it at a time when WT7 was still standing.

Now your kinda reaching there. The BBC is one of the better organisations for news and what I would say happened IMO is that the word went out that WT7 was going to be pulled (as stated by the owner) and the reporters got wind of this. Then as we are now a 24/7 information overloaded world we see a news reader on BBC stating that WT7 has collapsed when you can see the building still standing and burning for the duration of the 5 minute interview which by the way was abrupted stopped....So was it a mistake I think not. Was it incredible forsight maybe the reporter was Notradamous reincarnated...

But to say chinese whipsers is rediculous. It went out on two tv stations before it came down....That to me means that people knew it was coming down which means they had control over it coming down

Di0genes

fliball123 wrote: »

But the reporter clearly states that building 7 has collapsed and it was right behind her head...something stinks

Unless the reporter didn't know which one of the dozens of skyscrapers behind her was building 7.

Now your kinda reaching there. The BBC is one of the better organisations for news and what I would say happened IMO is that the word went out that WT7 was going to be pulled (as stated by the owner)

He said the rescue organisation was to be pulled

Why would he go on the record and admit the planned demolition of the building?

Then as we are now a 24/7 information overloaded world we see a news reader on BBC stating that WT7 has collapsed when you can see the building still standing and burning for the duration of the 5 minute interview which by the way was abrupted stopped....So was it a mistake I think not. Was it incredible forsight maybe the reporter was Notradamous reincarnated...

Just out of curiosity, on the damning video that exposes it, don't the have to highlight what building building 7 is. Could you spot building 7 without this aid?

But to say chinese whipsers is rediculous. It went out on two tv stations before it came down....That to me means that people knew it was coming down which means they had control over it coming down

I posted links to dozens of firefighters saying how they saw the building on fire, in danger of collapse, in serious structural instability.

Lead a horse to water.....etc....

Di0genes

Axe Rake wrote: »

Why don't you read the article... it's all there including author, although it is probably a pseudonym.

It's a 59 report that claims the 9/11 attacks were to cover up a fraud that is simply dwarfed by the current economic bailout.

Its completely implausible.

And yes there's no author.

fliball123

Di0genes wrote: »

Unless the reporter didn't know which one of the dozens of skyscrapers behind her was building 7.



He said the rescue organisation was to be pulled

Why would he go on the record and admit the planned demolition of the building?



Just out of curiosity, on the damning video that exposes it, don't the have to highlight what building building 7 is. Could you spot building 7 without this aid?



I posted links to dozens of firefighters saying how they saw the building on fire, in danger of collapse, in serious structural instability.

Lead a horse to water.....etc....

eh no his exact quote is "pull it"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

and yes I would have known it was right beside the reporters head

as for why he said what he said god knows why. So you think that this evidence of him saying pull it and the fact that it was obvious at least 2 (1 being the bbc Which is one of the biggest and best news report units in the world) had stated that WT7 had collapsed is all curcumstantial and yet you troth out the auld lead a horse to water...yeah right are you George bush in disguise


In previous posts you argue firemen are not equiped to say what molten metal or steal or what ever the conversation...Yet you now think that they know exactly when WT7 is going to collapse...or any building ..you would have to be a fecking seer to know when a building is going to collapse..

As I say you can speculate all you want as to the knowledge of firemen. The bare fact remains that the BBC knew prior to the building WT7 being pulled or "pull it" as Larry states this is a big hole in your theory as if there is prior knowledge to a building collapsing then someone is in control of the building coming down. You have yet to come up with a plausable explaination for this and until you do your theory and the OP theory is in shreds to be honest.

haha you think the BBC dont do any research ahh sure lets see how that one plays out...do you not think that they would know the number of buildings and the names of the buildings around the world Trade Centre after two plane crashes into WTC 1 and 2...(possibly the biggest event to happen since the atomic bomb)...Will you get a grip and smell what your shovelling...maybe its that horse you quoted earlier that your cleaing up after

mgmt

fliball123 wrote: »

eh no his exact quote is "pull it"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

and yes I would have known it was right beside the reporters head

as for why he said what he said god knows why. So you think that this evidence of him saying pull it and the fact that it was obvious at least 2 (1 being the bbc Which is one of the biggest and best news report units in the world) had stated that WT7 had collapsed is all curcumstantial and yet you troth out the auld lead a horse to water...yeah right are you George bush in disguise


In previous posts you argue firemen are not equiped to say what molten metal or steal or what ever the conversation...Yet you now think that they know exactly when WT7 is going to collapse...or any building ..you would have to be a fecking seer to know when a building is going to collapse..

As I say you can speculate all you want as to the knowledge of firemen. The bare fact remains that the BBC knew prior to the building WT7 being pulled or "pull it" as Larry states this is a big whole in your theory as if there is prior knowledge to a building collapsing then someone is in control of the building coming down. You have yet to come up with a plausable explaination for this and until you do your theory and the OP theory is in shreds to be honest.

haha you think the BBC dont do any research ahh sure lets see how that one plays out...You dont think that they would know the number of buildings and the names of the buildings around the world Trade Centre after two plane crashes into WTC 1 and 2...will you get a grip and smell what your shovelling...maybe its that horse you quoted earlier that your cleaing up after

To become an officer in the Irish Fire Brigade you have to have a degree in engineering. I'd imagine the same in the FDNY. These officers are well able to judge the structural integrity of a building. Also, the first rule of working for the emergency services is to not put yourself into danger. You are no good to anyone dead.

So on that day the FDNY made the decision to pull the operation to contain the fire in WT7 ("it"). They informed the media that the building was going to collapse. In the hysteria the BBC reported that the building had collapsed rather than collapsing.

This youtube video explains the absurdity of this conspiracy rather well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43F54hR0NW8

Di0genes

fliball123 wrote: »

eh no his exact quote is "pull it"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

2006 called and wants it's conspiracy back.

and yes I would have known it was right beside the reporters head

as for why he said what he said god knows why.

So he incriminated himself on video, for ****s n giggles?

So you think that this evidence of him saying pull it and the fact that it was obvious at least 2 (1 being the bbc Which is one of the biggest and best news report units in the world) had stated that WT7 had collapsed is all curcumstantial and yet you troth out the auld lead a horse to water...yeah right are you George bush in disguise

As I mentioned in a plethora of quotes, the fact that building 7 was going to collapse was obvious to every fire fighter within the area of ground zero.

In previous posts you argue firemen are not equiped to say what molten metal or steal

It's pretty simple, you don't know when you see motel metal, what the composite of the metal is.

or what ever the conversation...Yet you now think that they know exactly when WT7 is going to collapse...or any building ..you would have to be a fecking seer to know when a building is going to collapse..

A building fully involved in flames, with gaping holes in the side of it.

As I say you can speculate all you want as to the knowledge of firemen. The bare fact remains that the BBC knew prior to the building WT7

As mentioned alot of people knew prior to the collapse of the WTC7 that it was in danger of collapse.

being pulled or "pull it" as Larry states this is a big hole in your theory as if there is prior knowledge to a building collapsing then someone is in control of the building coming down. You have yet to come up with a plausable explaination for this and until you do your theory and the OP theory is in shreds to be honest.

Yeah. The dozens of quotes from firemen is a plausible explanation.

haha you think the BBC dont do any research ahh sure lets see how that one plays out...You dont think that they would know the number of buildings and the names of the buildings around the world Trade Centre after two plane crashes into WTC 1 and 2...will you get a grip and smell what your shovelling...maybe its that horse you quoted earlier that your cleaing up after

I think that on the day, there were complicated and serious issues than figuring out which building was building 7.

fliball123

mgmt wrote: »

To become an officer in the Irish Fire Brigade you have to have a degree in engineering. I'd imagine the same in the FDNY. These officers are well able to judge the structural integrity of a building. Also, the first rule of working for the emergency services is to not put yourself into danger. You are no good to anyone dead.

So on that day the FDNY made the decision to pull the operation to contain the fire in WT7 ("it"). They informed the media that the building was going to collapse. In the hysteria the BBC reported that the building had collapsed rather than collapsing.

This youtube video explains the absurdity of this conspiracy rather well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43F54hR0NW8

Well then wouldnt the prudent reporter of reported that the building was going to collapse momentarily or in the near future..Good attempt but still does not come close a reasonable explaination. I will conceed the bit about the firemen and knowledge of structural damage thats fair enough but would any person be able to tell for sure what time that building was going to collapse.... ..Not a chance unless your Notradamous reincarnated...So are we lead to believe that the BBC would report something before it happened...kinda jumped the gun, can anyone show me evidence of this happening previously. As I stated it was 2 news channels that did this..The fact that it was the BBC meant that they were not constrained by the beast that is American media.

As I stated I have read through all of this looked at all the videos on youtube the pro and against 9/11 cover up and the 2 most damning pieces of evidence that it was a cover up. Is the fact that a lot of family members started the 9/11 truth movement .. Why is that and secondly the link to Larry stating it "pull it" and the BBC and another station actually airing that the building had collapsed when it could be actually seen in the background.

mgmt

fliball123 wrote: »

Well then wouldnt the prudent reporter of reported that the building was going to collapse momentarily or in the near future..Good attempt but still does not come close a reasonable explaination.

Please write proper english.

I will conceed the bit about the firemen and knowledge of structural damage thats fair enough but would any person be able to tell for sure what time that building was going to collapse.... ..Not a chance unless your Notradamous reincarnated...

I can assure you that if you sat through 4 years of structural engineering classes you would know if a building is in danger of collapse. Even if you were just a janitor in the building checking on the rooms, if you saw the concrete support columns cracking you would know.

As I stated I have read through all of this looked at all the videos on youtube the pro and against 9/11 cover up and the 2 most damning pieces of evidence that it was a cover up. Is the fact that a lot of family members started the 9/11 truth movement .. Why is that and secondly the link to Larry stating it "pull it" and the BBC and another station actually airing that the building had collapsed when it could be actually seen in the background.

The BBC is a British organisation. If you were reporting for RTE that day in New York, would you know where WTC7 was?

fliball123

Di0genes wrote: »

2006 called and wants it's conspiracy back.





So he incriminated himself on video, for ****s n giggles?



As I mentioned in a plethora of quotes, the fact that building 7 was going to collapse was obvious to every fire fighter within the area of ground zero.



It's pretty simple, you don't know when you see motel metal, what the composite of the metal is.



A building fully involved in flames, with gaping holes in the side of it.



As mentioned alot of people knew prior to the collapse of the WTC7 that it was in danger of collapse.



Yeah. The dozens of quotes from firemen is a plausible explanation.



I think that on the day, there were complicated and serious issues than figuring out which building was building 7.

So when I show you a video of the main man Larry stating "pull it" you have a go at the poster...and still no attempt to bridge the gap from reality that 2 media broadcasters (one being the BBC) got it completely wrong and said the building had collapsed when it was still up. Building 7 did not have any holes in it and as seen in some video footage there seemed to be only a couple of floors on fire. Can you show me the video building 7 fully involved with flames I have yet to see this?

Still your only evidence is the hearsay of firemen that it was going to collapse grand ....

So lets see how this is

You are stating that the firemen knew building 7 was going to collapse.. Right thats plausable..

You are stating that these firemen knew when the building was going to come down...not plausable at all unless you know the future or know the building is being pulled.

You are stating that 2 media outlets one being the BBC known for being very thorough on their reporting, jumped the gun and said the building had collapsed..That does not sound plausable.

It doesnt add up and please dont have a go at the poster..I am willing to listen if you have anyting tangable or plausable to say..Till now yes I will concede that firemen may be able to say that it will collapse but as to when I very much doubt even the most intellegent fireman would be guessing as to when the building would come down.

So its still a fail as regards to the larry and "pull it"

and the fact that people knew the building was coming down??

fliball123

mgmt wrote: »

Please write proper english.




I can assure you that if you sat through 4 years of structural engineering classes you would know if a building is in danger of collapse. Even if you were just a janitor in the building checking on the rooms, if you saw the concrete support columns cracking you would know.





The BBC is a British organisation. If you were reporting for RTE that day in New York, would you know where WTC7 was?

What I am saying if you are a fcuking reporter you know the general topic that you are reporting on. To say that the BBC reporter did not know building 7 is a cope out. So what other building collapse only 3 did and the first 2 are unmistable. So it had to be Building 7 that she was referring too.

Like I have conceded the firemen may have known that it was going to collapse but how did they know when?

Di0genes

fliball123 wrote: »

Well then wouldnt the prudent reporter of reported that the building was going to collapse momentarily or in the near future..Good attempt but still does not come close a reasonable explaination. I will conceed the bit about the firemen and knowledge of structural damage thats fair enough but would any person be able to tell for sure what time that building was going to collapse.... ..Not a chance unless your Notradamous reincarnated...So are we lead to believe that the BBC would report something before it happened...kinda jumped the gun, can anyone show me evidence of this happening previously. As I stated it was 2 news channels that did this..The fact that it was the BBC meant that they were not constrained by the beast that is American media.

How about earlier that day?

10:23: The Associated Press reports a car bomb has exploded outside the State Department in Washington, D.C. This and several other reports of terrorist acts in the capital are quickly found to be false.[21]

They didn't report the time of the collapse they just jumped the gun.

It's called the fog of war. Facts and details become murky.

You admit now that firemen can make judgements on the collapse.

As I stated I have read through all of this looked at all the videos on youtube the pro and against 9/11 cover up and the 2 most damning pieces of evidence that it was a cover up. Is the fact that a lot of family members started the 9/11 truth movement ..

Really which family members? The first 9/11 conspiracy theorists were people like Alex Jones, and a french conspiracy theorists.

Why is that and secondly the link to Larry stating it "pull it" and the BBC and another station actually airing that the building had collapsed when it could be actually seen in the background.

If I point you at the new york skyline can you identify which building is which?

fliball123

Di0genes wrote: »

How about earlier that day?



They didn't report the time of the collapse they just jumped the gun.

It's called the fog of war. Facts and details become murky.

You admit now that firemen can make judgements on the collapse.



Really which family members? The first 9/11 conspiracy theorists were people like Alex Jones, and a french conspiracy theorists.


If I point you at the new york skyline can you identify which building is which?

hang on any reporter worth their salt will not report on something that has not happened...Your kind of reacking there..

As I said yeah a fireman would probably know that a building may collapse but as I say how would you know when?

Look there is a lot of ****e on the net but there is a 9/11 truth movement which involves a lot of the family members...

What has that got to do with anything about me know a building in the NY skyline..

I tell you do if 2 planes crashed into 2 buildings in a complex and I was getting paid money to do a job of reporting..I sure as hell would know which building is which

Di0genes

fliball123 wrote: »

So when I show you a video of the main man Larry stating "pull it" you have a go at the poster...and still no attempt to bridge the gap from reality that 2 media broadcasters (one being the BBC) got it completely wrong and said the building had collapsed when it was still up. Building 7 did not have any holes in it and as seen in some video footage there seemed to be only a couple of floors on fire. Can you show me the video building 7 fully involved with flames I have yet to see this?

Still your only evidence is the hearsay of firemen that it was going to collapse grand ....

Experts in building stability. Including the Chief of the FDNY.

So lets see how this is

You are stating that the firemen knew building 7 was going to collapse.. Right thats plausable..

You are stating that these firemen knew when the building was going to come down...not plausable at all unless you know the future or know the building is being pulled.

No one does.

You're not making Sense.

The fact is the people around the building knew it was going to collapse, at some point, so the BBC understood the building was about to collapse, and mis heard it, as it had collapsed.

You are stating that 2 media outlets one being the BBC known for being very thorough on their reporting, jumped the gun and said the building had collapsed..That does not sound plausable.

Unfortunately I've worked in both journalism and TV news, and yes it is plausible.

I've given you the example of several news sources picking up on the car bomb story at the state department building as proof.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=72047987

It doent add up and please dont have a go at the poster..I am willing to listen if you have anyting tangable or plausable to say..Till now yes I will concede that firemen may be able to say that it will collapse but as to when I very much doubt even the most intellegent fireman would be guessing as to when the building would come down.

So its still a fail as regards to the larry and "pull it"

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

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

and the fact that people knew the building was coming down??

You just admitted people knew it.

The BBC reporter was several miles away from ground zero, across central park.

How is the reporter supposed to know which building is building 7?

Di0genes

fliball123 wrote: »

hang on any reporter worth their salt will not report on something that has not happened...Your kind of reacking there..

I'm what?

I just showed you how several news organisation on the day, reported that a car bomb had blown up in washington DC?

Look there is a lot of ****e on the net but there is a 9/11 truth movement which involves a lot of the family members...

And I'd like you to prove it.

Why aren't the family members at 9/11 shouting "investigate 9/11?"

What has that got to do with anything about me know a building in the NY skyline..

I tell you do if 2 planes crashed into 2 buildings in a complex and I was getting paid money to do a job of reporting..I sure as hell would know which building is which

Thats your opinion. Unfortunately you don't know anything about tv news.

mgmt

Here is the truth about WTC7

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

I recommended you read it before you believe clowns like Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen, or Rosie O'Donnell who insult the victims of 9/11.

fliball123

mgmt wrote: »

Here is the truth about WTC7

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

I recommended you read it before you believe clowns like Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen, or Rosie O'Donnell who insult the victims of 9/11.

can I ask what would Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell or the likes of Vince Ventura all well known celebs gain from speaking out about this???

What about the story of Barry Jennings who was inside building 7 before building 1 and 2 came down and he hears explosions...

As I say you are yet to convince me of building 7 coming down by itself?

mgmt

fliball123 wrote: »

can I ask what would Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell or the likes of Vince Ventura all well known celebs gain from speaking out about this???

What about the story of Barry Jennings who was inside building 7 before building 1 and 2 came down and he hears explosions...

As I say you are yet to convince me of building 7 coming down by itself?

Why don't you read the report I linked to. It looks at the explosive conspiracy theory on page 26.

fliball123

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm what?

I just showed you how several news organisation on the day, reported that a car bomb had blown up in washington DC?



And I'd like you to prove it.

Why aren't the family members at 9/11 shouting "investigate 9/11?"



Thats your opinion. Unfortunately you don't know anything about tv news.

haha you have to be a joke...A reporter is paid to investigate or report and can lose thier job by misreporting something as the company could be sued for slander...So they have to be very maticulous in their detail...To say that BBC jumped the gun is a joke...and your showing yourself to be dead set in your way...

As for proving the family members a quick google search and here is just the first url ...Knock yourself out their kid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement

Neither yourself or the other poster has proved why BBC had prior knoledge of the building coming down when it did...As I say its a feet that notrodamous would be proud of if we are to believe you 2 jokers

Di0genes

fliball123 wrote: »

can I ask what would Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell or the likes of Vince Ventura all well known celebs gain from speaking out about this???

In the case of Ventura. He got a TV show.

What about the story of Barry Jennings who was inside building 7 before building 1 and 2 came down and he hears explosions...

Explosions doesn't equal explosives. They indicate things blowing. Things blow up in fire.

As I say you are yet to convince me of building 7 coming down by itself?

But you admit firefighters knew the building was going to collapse hours beforehand correct?

Di0genes

fliball123 wrote: »

haha you have to be a joke...A reporter is paid to investigate or report and can lose thier job by misreporting something as the company could be sued for slander...So they have to be very maticulous in their detail...To say that BBC jumped the gun is a joke...and your showing yourself to be dead set in your way...

Bangs head. I just showed a clear example of reporters on the day mis reporting something.

As for proving the family members a quick google search and here is just the first url ...Knock yourself out their kid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement

Doesn't show family members buying into the conspiracy theories.

Oh dear.

Neither yourself or the other poster has proved why BBC had prior knoledge of the building coming down when it did...As I say its a feet that notrodamous would be proud of if we are to believe you 2 jokers

Everyone had prior knowledge that the building was going to collapse.

Axe Rake

Di0genes wrote: »

It's a 59 report that claims the 9/11 attacks were to cover up a fraud that is simply dwarfed by the current economic bailout.

Its completely implausible.

And yes there's no author.

There is a part 2 follow up report where the author goes in depth on how this event lead to the economic disintegration in 2008.

However since you refuse to read the article and you seem unable to find the authors name (it's at the bottom of the article, above the mentioned sources) it is obvious to me that you don't wish to discuss this topic with any seriousness.