The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Actually that makes perfect sense...it is what happened pre ww1 and pre ww11....It is all about putting people into a state of complacency....Put the burden of life on people and they will end up going against each other until a common enemy is then put forward...then with all the disillusioned people you can fill your armies...IT is history repeating itself yet again....When war breaks out in the middle east and spreads through Europe...where do you think all these broke...down trodden youth will go...You have created a perfect scenario...a workforce has become available ....and a young army has been created.
I hope your not that blind there trick...why try to make people to be so ignorant....It is all about controlling the masses...what might not make sense as individuals...it makes perfect sense when massing the people into a common cause.
You cannot have a bunch of middle class people to fight a war can you....no one would go...when people are fat happy and content there is not reason to battle...but when poor are kept on the verge of survival they will do almost anything to help their families survive.
This recession was created on purpose by those very people...one It brings down land prices...just because the poor cannot afford to buy....you will notice the rich buying up all things....and soon we will be buying and making their weapons of war for them on mass scales....everyone will either be working or be swindled in to thinking they will need to work in weapons factories to survive...they have no problem doing this...AS Amschel Rothchild once said "Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws".

reply to post by SimonPeter


You are right about WTC 7 - was referring to Verizon next to it Verizon was built in 1927 with a heavy
concrete shell

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by SimonPeter
We are about to be under a Global Socialist government.

No we're not. Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production, an economic system, not a form of government.

We are already under a world-wide capitalist corporate dictatorship. Capitalist interests control governments.

If the workers took control of the means of production we would all be better off in more ways than one, and we wouldn't need government.

This is the first sensible thing I've ever seen you write.

At least you can back what you say with some credible sources for a change.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by SimonPeter
We are about to be under a Global Socialist government.

No we're not. Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production, an economic system, not a form of government.

We are already under a world-wide capitalist corporate dictatorship. Capitalist interests control governments.

If the workers took control of the means of production we would all be better off in more ways than one, and we wouldn't need government.

This is the first sensible thing I've ever seen you write.

At least you can back what you say with some credible sources for a change.

Funny how the lowest of the low in the capitalist economic pyramid are its most ardent defenders.

Ironically, the elite corporatist rely on socialist programmes such a taxpayer paid educated workforce to operate their mills.

Even more amusingly, the elite socialise their debt and privatise their debt. Then we have the Teabaggers!

I bet the bankers crease themselves when they see teabaggers doing their teabagging things.

reply to post by ANOK


It's all the same to me . My rights will go away and we will be the chattel of some Bankster .
You think corporate and money . There Beast have all of that already . They want to reduce population by 95 % so they can move freely without you being in the way . They want to drive their Ferrari with out your 99 Chevy hazarding them. They want to own it all and the little fish corporations can kiss their rears and die .
The goal is to chip the people and enslave their chattel like the cattle in the fields .
George Soros is a Socialist and is pushing Obama to convert us . Most all of Obamas Czars and Cabinet are openly Socialist . Cass Sunstien wrote a book about America only needing a Nudge to go Socialist .
It,s all the same to me ! And it always moves to Totalitarianism .

Originally posted by Flatcoat
So, if the apartment building was steel framed, it would have telescoped straight down? Is that the point you're trying to make?

WTC 7 didn't telescope, but whatever. I'm used to the misleading terms and misinformation you guys pull.

My point is that there is no evidence that a steel framed building that has been damaged CAN fall over like that. The only previous instances all involve concrete structures. Isn't that at least curious to you?

reply to post by Varemia


Any structure will fall like that . A tree is notched on the side you want it to fall to . This is not a material type specific collapse . Set a card board box half way on a table . Which way do you think it will fall ? it can't fall straight down . It will not tip on to the table .
The fact that this building fell straight down shows there was a failure of the columns across the whole building at the same time . A few fires caused this . The exterior columns would be less likely to have been heated that the interior columns as we could not see that much fire .near the exterior of the building .
The whole thing is that the Powers that be think the people to be utterly stupid and would believe what ever they say . I think we have surprised them .

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by thegameisup

 

But in asserting that there was no 20 story hole until you see it is completely ignoring the firefighter testimony. You have to believe the firefighters were literally lying to avoid accepting that WTC 7 was damaged. There are pictures that show some of the damage, to give an idea, though they still don't show the Eastern half of the building.

911myths.com...

I think with that much damage on one side, it's safe to assume that the other side was at least similarly damaged, and the firefighter testimony supports that assumption. The smoke kinda does too.

From your link...

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.

Thank you for that link. I had previously asked where the fires were in WTC7 but the question was ignored and in your link it is revealed that the damage (where they had to put the transit due to a "bulging" that was noticed "early on" was from floors 10-13 so I did a search on occupancy of each floor and what do you know, no surprise here either...


en.wikipedia.org...

13 Salomon Smith Barney, Provident Financial Management, American Express Bank International, Securities & Exchange Commission, Standard Chartered Bank 12 Securities & Exchange Commission 11 Securities & Exchange Commission 10 U.S. Secret Service, Standard Chartered Bank

Now how many open investigations being conducted by the SEC had there files obliterated that day? ... funny how it always leads back to money

17 — 16 — 15 — 14 —

No listing as to who was on those floors and I assume it was the Command and control bunker but I have no idea.

Again, thank you for answering my question. Now let me ask another, where are the pictures of this 20 story hole on one side and why didn't the building fall over as it weakened instead of totally collapsing into itself? Even a simple minded lumberjack will tell you that to fell a tree a side is cut which dictates the direction of fall and they aren't structural engineers. I know you tried to preempt this question by stating

I think with that much damage on one side, it's safe to assume that the other side was at least similarly damaged, and the firefighter testimony supports that assumption. The smoke kinda does too

Assuming isn't evidence. Care to post some pics as "PROOF" of what you assert here?

Why do people bother quoting from an amateur site like 9/11 myths?

It full of crap, and it seems it's only purpose is to try to convince people that 9/11 was not an inside job.

There seems to be a lot of people trying to convince folk that 9/11 was not an inside job.

reply to post by thegameisup


Well there is some reason to do so . It would upset their whole world and mean that Treasonous people are in control of our country . They can't live with that .

Originally posted by thegameisup
Why do people bother quoting from an amateur site like 9/11 myths?

It full of crap, and it seems it's only purpose is to try to convince people that 9/11 was not an inside job.

There seems to be a lot of people trying to convince folk that 9/11 was not an inside job.

It still presents 90% truth to sell that 10% lie and was helpful in knowing which floors were "hit" and the SEC had who knows how many millions/billions/trillions worth of criminal investigations going on in their thousands of open cases.

It is always about money...

Originally posted by anoncoholic

Originally posted by thegameisup
Why do people bother quoting from an amateur site like 9/11 myths?

It full of crap, and it seems it's only purpose is to try to convince people that 9/11 was not an inside job.

There seems to be a lot of people trying to convince folk that 9/11 was not an inside job.

It still presents 90% truth to sell that 10% lie and was helpful in knowing which floors were "hit" and the SEC had who knows how many millions/billions/trillions worth of criminal investigations going on in their thousands of open cases.

It is always about money...

Yes, you are right in saying that 9/11 myths website mixes truth and lies together, and can be a good resource for the actual truthful stuff. But most of the lies that are deliberately built into 9/11 myths website are presented on this forum by the OS'ers as truths.

The either the OS'ers know they are lies and are deliberately presenting them as such, or they are just taking everything they are told that relates to the OS, as a truth, but I highly doubt that.

MSNBC Reporter talking close to WTC7 just before it goes down, she was also pre-warned of it's collapse, seems the news crews were all told, but members of the public in that area were not informed.

Notice how the male presenter at the end of the video (1:15) says "WTC7 was part of the damage from the 'EXPLOSION' and collapse of the other two (towers)".


WTC7 - "That is the building that is going to go down next"

Originally posted by thegameisup
MSNBC Reporter talking close to WTC7 just before it goes down, she was also pre-warned of it's collapse, seems the news crews were all told, but members of the public in that area were not informed.

What evidence are you basing this idea on? That the public were not told WTC7 was a collapse candidate?

MUST WATCH VIDEO!!

Yet another foreknowledge video, where a CNN reporter says WTC7 has collapsed but it's is again, still visible in the background (1:32).

You'll also hear firefighter say that an explosion and explosion at WTC7, and there is a good selection of sounds from explosions coming from the WTC7 area.

1:48 - Policeman saying "get back, the building (WTC7) is about to 'BLOW UP'

Watch the whole video, firemen talking of explosive detonations, molten steel in the debris, and many other suspect things.

911 WTC7 collapse collapses Ground zero WTC 7 firefighters

Another revealing video about WTC7



At 2:52 notice hoe the demolition worker says "we're getting ready to pull building 6" so this proves that the term 'pull' is used in demolition.

Structural Engineer, Ramon Gilsanz makes some interesting points, and the whole video highlights in many ways that WTC7 should not have collapsed the way it did.

Originally posted by thegameisup
At 2:52 notice hoe the demolition worker says "we're getting ready to pull building 6" so this proves that the term 'pull' is used in demolition.

Actually not, they literally pulled Building 6 down with cables. This is the only way that term is used in demolition. Having said that you really shouldn't be posting just videos without significant commentary. Would you care to answer the question I left you above?

reply to post by thegameisup


Spoken by someone who has never actually looked at the site. It says right on the home page to check things out for yourself. It's a collection of links to various sources of information and links to the commonly misused sources used by conspiracists. It also contains links to the actual documents used in the investigations. In other words, it's another site set up to deny ignorance.

reply to post by exponent


Where did you get that bit of information from ? The industry standard for bringing down a building is Pull it . I doubt they pulled it down with cables either .

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by exponent

 

Where did you get that bit of information from ? The industry standard for bringing down a building is Pull it . I doubt they pulled it down with cables either .

This is a myth spread entirely on 911 truth sites I'm afraid. The term has never been used to mean 'destroy with explosives'. Dave had a whole thread and nobody was able to find a single quote supporting it.

Hell, there are phone recordings of 911 truth members phoning up demolition companies and asking them.

Just a common myth that gets reposted every few weeks for the rest of time.