“What about building 7?”

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


I usually like your comments...but this one flew over my head...??

What is your point?



 


There's around 20,000 government employees for ever 300,000 people and a large number of media, corporate and independent, some who give their lives for stories.

I just find it amazing they were all in on it.


Don't you?




(If you are going to state the obvious, you dont have too. That was the intent of my sarcasm.)




posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Obviously, I will continue to ask if people know what was in Building 7 that needed to be destroyed, so earnestly.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


If the obvious is a reasonable assumption that not everybody was in on it...than we agree.

I have already stated on a thread about Iraq war...and it's rather simple. The report about wmd's in Iraq were false. Whether intentional or not...it is off no consequence. The rest that were involved, could have just been innocently following orders.

Same here applies if you ask me. Very few people needed to be involved if any...



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by boncho
 


If the obvious is a reasonable assumption that not everybody was in on it...than we agree.

I have already stated on a thread about Iraq war...and it's rather simple. The report about wmd's in Iraq were false. Whether intentional or not...it is off no consequence. The rest that were involved, could have just been innocently following orders.

Same here applies if you ask me. Very few people needed to be involved if any...


That's all I was getting at. Blanket statements make us look likes fools. 5-10 maybe 20 strategically placed people, and you'd be amazed at what can be accomplished.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


Building 7 was full of CIA records - from the Clintons, Bin Laden, and the Bush's.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 


There are easier ways to make records disappear...than to take down a building.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi

No, she did not. Get your facts right. The BBC reporter said that she and her team was getting news that WTC7 had collapsed. This was about 20 minutes before it actually happened. She was NOT given "messages of an immanent collapse". She told the linkman at the BBC that the building had collapsed (NOT about to collapse) even though it was visible in the background.
.


Errr you obviously haven't read my post properly.......try again!

Now let's assume for argument sake it was an inside job...........please do tell why the government informed the media!!!!
If you want anything kept secret the media is the last place to go!
So enlighten me ...........why would the US government inform a humble BBC reporter about their plan???



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Ahhh building seven. That mysterious feeling...that intuition...that gut feeling.

You can use the intellect to convince your eyes that they did not see, your ears that they did
not hear...but deep down inside...you know the truth.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by micpsi
 


Building 7 was the ultimate goal - insurance monies handed out to the peoples that owned the other towers was just a "handout".


and this is a perfect example of what is probably the biggest problem with the truth movement; its full of people shouting their mouths off like they know what they are talking about with out first engaging some gray matter.

So the ultimate goal of 9/11 was the destruction of WTC-7 so you say?

if that was the truth then why not just fly a plane into WTC-7 on its own and avoid all that complicated stuff with the twin towers, the pentagon and flight 93.

Or better yet why not just have a huge fire start in WTC-7 claim it was some kind of accident then have all the fuel tanks blow up and claim that it was that which destroyed the building.

you see, that's the problem with your claim, in fact that is the problem with most truther claims, a little logic and critical thinking destroys them.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


And of course, in retaliation innocent people had to be bombed.
After Afghanistan, why not bomb and invade Irak by claiming they had WMD's which of course were never found.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by boncho
 


If the obvious is a reasonable assumption that not everybody was in on it...than we agree.

I have already stated on a thread about Iraq war...and it's rather simple. The report about wmd's in Iraq were false. Whether intentional or not...it is off no consequence. The rest that were involved, could have just been innocently following orders.

Same here applies if you ask me. Very few people needed to be involved if any...


That's all I was getting at. Blanket statements make us look likes fools. 5-10 maybe 20 strategically placed people, and you'd be amazed at what can be accomplished.


That is very true boncho. 20 disinformation agents after an incident occurs who are suggesting the impossible like fools or debunking the obvious, can both do damage.

Yeah but building 7 to me was the main one that left me immediately scratching my head. Then you got nutcases that believe laser projected holograms flew into the twin towers. That is where they lost me bro. ~$heopleNation



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Who collected billions of dollars in insurance money with the buildings - plural - being destroyed?

That's the problem with people who don't see the whole forest, when looking at a tree.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Happy1

Who collected billions of dollars in insurance money with the buildings - plural - being destroyed?

Who lost billions of dollars in property and rents with the buildings - plural - being destroyed?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


The city and state of New York lost billions in property taxes - and incurred billions in expenses - who got the quick insurance buyout? Follow the money.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
The two main WTCs that collapsed just so happened to be "negative equity situations". That is, the cost of their demolition, due to bad building practises, was greater than the value of the the real estate they sat on. Of course, should they fall down, then the owners would be quids in, as it were.

WTC7 contained virtually every last file detailing a trillion dollar fraud that involved some of the most powerful people in the USA. Many of the names in those files are the same names that have made an absolute fortune from the resultant "wars" since.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Who collected billions of dollars in insurance money with the buildings - plural - being destroyed?

That's the problem with people who don't see the whole forest, when looking at a tree.


I must say in reading your rather posts so far i dont think you know the answer to your own question.....



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


What exactly was in Building 7? That' s the real meat of this conspiracy.


You're right, it IS the real meat of the conspiracy". In building 7 there was in fact "lots and lots of damage from the north tower collapsing" as well as "lots and lots of fire burning out of control". Both of them are deliberately being covered up by the conspiracy mongors to make the whole thing sound more spooky scary than it really is.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
Building 7 is the proof without anything else needed that they planned this as an inside job and the media was in on it.


building 7 is no proof. Even if it turns out that it was controlled demolition, why wouldnt it have been terrorists from Saudi Arabia with no connection to Americans whom planted those devices?

At best its a hint that somebody on the insight might have been involved, but again his motivation could have been greed if you argue people on the inside took bribes.

Proof of an insight job would be showing that the order to carry out the operation came from the US and/or that training and funding came from the US and/or cooperation or support of any kind from within the US or people acting on behalf of the us.

Controlled demolition by itself does not proof anything, its just something to be sceptical about.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Merinda
 


How do you mean no Proof?

here is a nice artical you might want to read and do some homework on.

"World Trade Center owner Larry Silverstein - who confessed on national television to “pulling” World Trade Center Building 7"

Is this the world's worst case of insurance fraud...ever?



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatcoat

Uh-huh...and how long did it take the U.S. Gov to accuse, try, convict and execute an entire country? Make that two countries. They were throwing around OBL's name an hour after the attack.......couldn't see it coming, but knew within an hour who did it.....yeah right.


Well golly gee, who else has been the #1 terrorist that could pull off a massive attack on foreign soil at the time and has been responsible for countless attacks around the world pror to 9/11? Old Agnes of 32 Meadow Lane in Bumbletown Idaho?
Refresh my memory, who blew up the USS Cole? WTC 1993? Khobar Towers? Embassy Bombings in East Africa? Assassination attempts on the Pope and Pres Clinton?

Yeaah. not too hard to figure out who dunno it after previous massive causality attacks. Hell even I knew it was OBL while I watched the attacks. youd have to have been pretty dense not to think or entertain the possibility of his involvement.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join