WTC #7 What the...?

2008-07-15 21:38:20

#1

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6785|Global Command

With all the bs about the economy and the fiscal rape that is Iraq this shit is getting harder to discredit.
Please discuss;

https://prisonplanet.com/Pictures/feb07/260207WTC_BBC3.jpg

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is the real deal; a conspiracy that has already accomplished its set goals. This is the "Illuminati" conceived New World Order. The Illuminati symbol is on every Amercan dollar bill. Don't think for a moment that the New World Order is about truth, freedom, or abundance. It's not. Just look at the 9-11 coverup. Our governments have been ignorantly lead deeply into debt by anonymous creditors, and they (our governments) transfer those dubious debts on to the shoulders of we citizens through taxes. The US Federal Reserve Bank, the IMF, the World Bank, the Bank of England, and most other "National" banks are wholly owned and/or controlled by wealthy Banking/Illuminati interests. The US Government continues to finance a large part of the budget by borrowing from the "Fed" (Federal Reserve Bank) at interest, and forcing we citizens into tax debt. The "Fed" simply creates money out of thin air, using the US tax cashflow as "security", and loans it to government. Your taxes then go partly to service the interest on this ever-growing national debt, and partly towards fomenting the next money-making war for the private banks. This is not banking conspiracy theory. It is absolute fact. And it is happening in nearly every country.

http://www.truthaboutax.com/site/1515517/page/658325

2008-07-15 21:54:45

#2

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6857|132 and Bush

The BBC in on it now?

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-07-15 21:56:47

#3

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6785|Global Command

2008-07-15 21:58:44

#4

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6386|North Tonawanda, NY

Coast to Coast much?

2008-07-15 22:00:38

#5

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6785|Global Command

Who's getting rich off the war?
Who's not securing the border?
Why?

Gotta better explanation? Please discuss.

9-11 was act two scene twelve I say.

2008-07-15 22:07:59

#6

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6386|North Tonawanda, NY

ATG wrote:
Who's getting rich off the war?
Who's not securing the border?
Why?

Gotta better explanation? Please discuss.

9-11 was act two scene twelve I say.

Do you blame Howard Hughes for getting filthy rich off the Cold War? Was that some sort of conspiracy?

Why doesn't the government secure the border? I'm not really sure. It would be nice, but I hardly chalk up government inability and sloth to some Illuminati-hatched scheme to destroy the world by letting Mexicans into the US.

Ignoring obvious explanations that make perfect logical sense and actually believing these bullshit conspiracy theories is lunacy.

2008-07-15 22:11:30

#7

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6785|Global Command

Stick and stones.

2008-07-15 22:13:08

#8

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6857|132 and Bush

ATG wrote:
Who's getting rich off the war?
Who's not securing the border?
Why?

Gotta better explanation? Please discuss.

9-11 was act two scene twelve I say.

The national debt (which we have had for nearly our entire existence) has nothing to do with pissed off middle eastern men. We don't need an invasion to continue fiscal irresponsibility. Trying to link this to the BBC is not only sad but it lacks common sense. I suppose we faked the moon landing in order to attack the Vietnamese?

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-07-15 22:57:09

#9

CommonSense: Banned; +51|6192|New York

Here we go...again.

2008-07-15 23:01:07

#10

Sgt.Gene: ...; +215|7020

Greenscreen?

2008-07-16 01:58:06

#11

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6667|'Murka

People sometimes let hatred and anger cloud their objectivity.

Happens a lot in D&ST.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-07-16 02:07:47

#12

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6793|Long Island, New York

Flight 93, the Pentagon (especially) and WTC 7 have always remained sketchy to me, and they always will.

You tell me when - in all of the videos of the Pentagon attack - that you see a plane.

2008-07-16 02:22:10

#13

ELITE-UK: Scratching my back; +170|6730|SHEFFIELD, ENGLAND

Poseidon wrote:
Flight 93, the Pentagon (especially) and WTC 7 have always remained sketchy to me, and they always will.

You tell me when - in all of the videos of the Pentagon attack - that you see a plane.

Agreed, the pentagon attack seems to have been some kind of rocket of some sorts.

2008-07-16 02:22:18

#14

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6667|'Murka

Poseidon wrote:
Flight 93, the Pentagon (especially) and WTC 7 have always remained sketchy to me, and they always will.

You tell me when - in all of the videos of the Pentagon attack - that you see a plane.

How about I tell you that one of the guys I work with picked up pieces of a Boeing 757...and its passengers during the clean up.

How about the photos of the passengers still strapped into their seats in some of the wreckage (shown at Moussaui's trial).

How about you look at the damage, how far it extends into the building and how it extends into the building, and then try to tell me it was a missile or a pre-placed charge.

WTC 7 was heavily damaged by the fall of WTC 1&2. People were trying to save the building for hours until they deemed it no longer safe. They let it collapse after that.

Nothing sketchy about it...unless that's what you want to see. And then no one will ever convince you otherwise. That's the beauty of conspiracy theories: proof that it didn't go down the way the theorists think it did only feeds the conspiracy. It's a self-licking ice cream cone.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-07-16 02:41:24

#15

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6793|Long Island, New York

FEOS wrote:
Poseidon wrote:
Flight 93, the Pentagon (especially) and WTC 7 have always remained sketchy to me, and they always will.

You tell me when - in all of the videos of the Pentagon attack - that you see a plane.
How about I tell you that one of the guys I work with picked up pieces of a Boeing 757...and its passengers during the clean up.

How about the photos of the passengers still strapped into their seats in some of the wreckage (shown at Moussaui's trial).

How about you look at the damage, how far it extends into the building and how it extends into the building, and then try to tell me it was a missile or a pre-placed charge.

WTC 7 was heavily damaged by the fall of WTC 1&2. People were trying to save the building for hours until they deemed it no longer safe. They let it collapse after that.

Nothing sketchy about it...unless that's what you want to see. And then no one will ever convince you otherwise. That's the beauty of conspiracy theories: proof that it didn't go down the way the theorists think it did only feeds the conspiracy. It's a self-licking ice cream cone.

Dude - there's like a 40 foot wide hole where a plane the size of a football field length wise crashed into. There's NO MARKINGS at all from the wings. None! In fact, the sides of the building where it was attacked only have smoke damage and that's about it.

And by the way, for a 757, it certainly didn't extend very far into the building for the speed it was going.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Pentagon_crach_site.jpg

You expect me to believe a fully loaded 757 plowed into that? Looks more like a truck bomb.

2008-07-16 02:50:05

#16

JahManRed: wank; +646|6884|IRELAND

WTC7 was hit down one side with rubble from the twin towers. I think the conspiracies started because the common news picture is of the side of wtc7 which wasn't hit. Which look untouched. The other side was a mess. The building was built over a subway and electricity substation so it was cantilevered at ground level. That coupled with fires are the official reason for the collapse. The building looked like a controlled explosion. But I recon that if part of the building was cantilevered then basically, say 6 heavy columns actually support 36 columns over the substation and subway. So it only takes the 6 to come down for a large proportion of the columns to come down together.
There is no way a demolition team could have spent the weeks drilling and setting charges without anyone knowing. The only was it could have been controlled would be if the charges were built into the building, which is impossible as explosives have a short shelf life.

2008-07-16 04:32:10

#17

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6546|Éire

JahManRed wrote:
WTC7 was hit down one side with rubble from the twin towers. I think the conspiracies started because the common news picture is of the side of wtc7 which wasn't hit. Which look untouched. The other side was a mess. The building was built over a subway and electricity substation so it was cantilevered at ground level. That coupled with fires are the official reason for the collapse. The building looked like a controlled explosion. But I recon that if part of the building was cantilevered then basically, say 6 heavy columns actually support 36 columns over the substation and subway. So it only takes the 6 to come down for a large proportion of the columns to come down together.
There is no way a demolition team could have spent the weeks drilling and setting charges without anyone knowing. The only was it could have been controlled would be if the charges were built into the building, which is impossible as explosives have a short shelf life.

The timing of the news report is slightly strange though. Maybe they 'tempted fate' by saying it collapsed!

2008-07-16 04:44:58

#18

imortal: Member; +240|6921|Austin, TX

BF2S topic: 9/11 all staged?
BF2S topic: Pentagon videon released
BF2S topic: Hunt the Boeng
BF2S topic: One Simple Question for 9/11 Conspiracists
BF2S topic: Demolition Expert Confirms WTC-7 Was "Controlled Demolition"
BF2S topic: 10 reasons why the hijackers where fake
BF2S topic: How to argue with a Conspiracy theorist.
...and this is only a sampling. Does anyone really have anything substansive to add on either side of the argument? Should the mods just sticky a 9/11/conspicacy thread up to keep the new threads to a minimum?

2008-07-16 05:32:32

#19

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7022|UK

I don't see how that is WTC #7, its width to height ratio is completely different from any other footage I have ever seen on those towers. The tower in the news report is about 1.5 times as wide as the WTC and no where near tall enough, no?

2008-07-16 05:39:38

#20

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6785|Global Command

imortal wrote:
BF2S topic: 9/11 all staged?
BF2S topic: Pentagon videon released
BF2S topic: Hunt the Boeng
BF2S topic: One Simple Question for 9/11 Conspiracists
BF2S topic: Demolition Expert Confirms WTC-7 Was "Controlled Demolition"
BF2S topic: 10 reasons why the hijackers where fake
BF2S topic: How to argue with a Conspiracy theorist.
...and this is only a sampling. Does anyone really have anything substansive to add on either side of the argument? Should the mods just sticky a 9/11/conspicacy thread up to keep the new threads to a minimum?

No they shouldn't.

Don't post a bunch of links to old threads when bumping old threads is bad.

2008-07-16 05:43:48

#21

AutralianChainsaw: Member; +65|6454

Ultimate proof that it was an inside job.

The shorting of american airlines and Unites airlines stocks just before 911.

Millions of dollars of profits.

And the SEC and FBI are unable to retrace the people who shorted the stocks

Last edited by AutralianChainsaw (2008-07-16 05:46:20)

2008-07-16 05:46:49

#22

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|6876|Mhz

Seen things like this a lot of times, sometimes they make a plausible argument sometimes it's just loonacy (i'll watch the ones in the OP when I'm home), but the only thing any of them have pointed out that has made me think is the suspiciously cleanly sheared support girders at ground zero, no tearing or warping on them just cut clean straight through at 45*, exactly like you find at controlled demolitions sites.

I'm still a long way from convinced though.

2008-07-16 06:01:47

#23

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6362|eXtreme to the maX

Why doesn't the government secure the border? I'm not really sure.

Um lets see, the govt can find trillions to look for Bin Laden in Iraq and they can't put up a simple fence?

Fuck Israel

2008-07-16 06:11:51

#24

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6479|Escea

if this is what happens on a reinforced concrete wall, I'm guessing something similar will happen on a much larger concrete structure

2008-07-16 06:13:22

#25

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6546|Éire

AutralianChainsaw wrote:
Ultimate proof that it was an inside job.

The shorting of american airlines and Unites airlines stocks just before 911.

Millions of dollars of profits.

And the SEC and FBI are unable to retrace the people who shorted the stocks

Is that true? It makes for a convincing argument if it is. Any sources?

BF2S Forums WTC #7 What the...?

ATG wrote:

ATG wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

imortal wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

Board footer