BBC Building 7 Video #1 MOST Discussed on You Tube This Week

yet somehow the fact that 3 mainstream media outlets said building 7 collapsed before it did on 9/11 isn't really that important of a story...not as important as anna nicole or britney spears at least...

this is just a conspiracy though, it never happened, we all know bin laden magically brought down building 7 in a perfect controlled demolition, because he hates freedom...

or you can choose any of the 5 or 6 official explanations for the building 7 collapse...looks like those freedom hating muslim conspiracy theorists can't get their stories straight...

BBC Building 7 Video #1 MOST Discussed on You Tube This Week

Why are you, pisshead, deliberately polluting the Politics forum with this Conspiracy bullshit every time you post it?

Have you ever even been to New York? If you're such an expert on 9/11, you'd have come here and, at the very least, visit the site of Ground Zero. Gullibility is not something to brag about - and New Yorkers are among the least gullible people in the world.

Do the Moderators, and the readers, a favor and keep your garbage on the Conspiracy forum that was set up for it.

How is this a Conspiracy BA? The video of BBC is being talked about they (BBC) did Report that. How is this a Conspiracy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krogith

How is this a Conspiracy BA? The video of BBC is being talked about they (BBC) did Report that. How is this a Conspiracy?

---

Because the opening thread suggests that the WTC attack was a conspiracy, and not the work of the terrorists that are charged with it.

Appartently at least one moderator agreed that this belongs in the conspiracy, and not the politics forum. Pissy is deliberatly doing this - because his case is old, and not getting enough support - either here, or elsewhere, and certainly not in NYC, from people like myself who were near the WTC on 9/11, and later.

Allot of those comments I would consider spam on that video. Someone just copy/pasting "9/11 was an inside job" or the like , over and over is spam. And let me ask you again. PrisonPlanet is soo "good" at finding errors in reports yet let this slip away for almost six and a half years? Something smells fishy about this.

LMAO! Watch this video to the end........the last 4 sec. spam will kill ya!
YouTube - XXX PORN? no - my little pony (or is it?)

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

, and not the work of the terrorists that are charged with it:upsidedow :upsidedow .

.

---

Really!?!:eek: :S2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eg420ne

Really!?!:spam1:

---

Whatever you say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

Whatever you say.:giveflower:

---

Well bust out the evidence then, ooooh wait Condi STILL has not provided that....Tell me sumthin besides that "I
was there" meme:spamsign:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

Gullibility is not something to brag about - and New Yorkers are among the least gullible people in the world.

---

Oh how i agree, did you know that 54% of New Yorkers believe the government had involvemnt in 911

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

Because the opening thread suggests that the WTC attack was a conspiracy, and not the work of the terrorists that are charged with it.

Appartently at least one moderator agreed that this belongs in the conspiracy, and not the politics forum. Pissy is deliberatly doing this - because his case is old, and not getting enough support - either here, or elsewhere, and certainly not in NYC, from people like myself who were near the WTC on 9/11, and later.

---

I am really quite disappointed. Youâ??ve really just closed your mind and wont even consider what this man is talking about.

Have you even bothered to read about tower 7?

Why do you close your eyes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harris7

Oh how i agree, did you know that 54% of New Yorkers believe the government had involvemnt in 911

---

How do you know? From a Zogby poll? Forget that, it's not correct, their 9/11 polls are biased and not objective. In addition, I know a LOT of New Yorkers, and nobody has ever expressed to me the idea that the government was involved in the attacks of 9/11.

The argument here usually goes back to Larry Silverstein, as if he could somehow get away with ordering the destruction of 7 WTC and collecting hundreds of millions,or more, in insurance. One film clip, from some far-off TV station, in Wisconsin I believe, was so off-based about the condition of NYC's financial district and the WTC prior to 9/11 it wasn't even worth addressing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

How do you know? From a Zogby poll? Forget that, it's not correct, their 9/11 polls are biased and not objective. In addition, I know a LOT of New Yorkers, and nobody has ever expressed to me the idea that the government was involved in the attacks of 9/11.

The argument here usually goes back to Larry Silverstein, as if he could somehow get away with ordering the destruction of 7 WTC and collecting hundreds of millions,or more, in insurance. One film clip, from some far-off TV station, in Wisconsin I believe, was so off-based about the condition of NYC's financial district and the WTC prior to 9/11 it wasn't even worth addressing.

---

IT comes down to a very few facts:
-tower 7 was not hit by a plane
-tower 7 fell, and looked as if imploded
-tower 7 was on fire
-Fire has Never been the cause of a cement/steel construction building
-it is impossible for the building to have fallen because of fire

-How did the building fall?

-well since it looked as if imploded, implosion is a very valid explanation
-unfortunately it takes weeks to plan and arrange the explosives to implode a building
-So either the building fell for no reason; unlikely
-or the demolition was planned ahead, a chilling thought

And oddly enough this entire problem was just skipped over in the commissioners report

You know, the report that was â??intendedâ?� to be the most comprehensive explanation and description of the event.

Governments in the past have used false flag operations in order to extend their power over and cultivate fear in their populace. It happens now and it will continue to happen in the future. Anyone who doesn't believe that is naive.

They do it because they know they can count on the majority of the people not believing it possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harris7

IT comes down to a very few facts:
-tower 7 was not hit by a plane
-tower 7 fell, and looked as if imploded
-tower 7 was on fire
-Fire has Never been the cause of a cement/steel construction building
-it is impossible for the building to have fallen because of fire

-How did the building fall?

-well since it looked as if imploded, implosion is a very valid explanation
-unfortunately it takes weeks to plan and arrange the explosives to implode a building
-So either the building fell for no reason; unlikely
-or the demolition was planned ahead, a chilling thought

And oddly enough this entire problem was just skipped over in the commissioners report

You know, the report that was â??intendedâ?� to be the most comprehensive explanation and description of the event.

---

Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 Cover Story
PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.

Published in the March 2005 issue.

Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 Cover Story
PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.

Published in the March 2005 issue.

WTC 7 Collapse

CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." (Bold mine)

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
FIRE STORM: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse.


FINE LINES: Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, below) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below).

Seismograph readings (graph 2) by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University/Won-Young Kim (senior research scientist)/Arthur Lerner-Lam (associate director)/Mary Tobin (senior science writer)/www.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn

Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 Cover Story - Popular Mechanics


PHOTOGRAPH BY NEW YORK OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
FIRE STORM: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. PHOTOGRAPH BY NEW YORK OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Here's the latest report from NIST, Dec. 12, 2006:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Appro...ary12Dec06.pdf

do you copy and paist arguments because you do not understand them for yourself?

i will not read your research for you

and thanks for posting pictures too small to read.

to comment on what your article and pictures seem to say

that the building was close to the towers and was hit with debries

oddly tower 7 is the furthest trade center building from the twin towers

odd that towers 3,4,5 and 6 which were MUCH closer didn't fall

I also wonder how they found this new evidence of damage to the building. you know, since there exists only 1 video from only one angle of the building falling and it isn't very good.

or maybe, they realized that no building (steel/cement) has ever fallen from fire; so they had to put something in so people could rationalize their conclusion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harris7

do you copy and paist arguments because you do not understand them for yourself?

i will not read your research for you

and thanks for posting pictures too small to read.

---

If the graphs are "too small to read" all you have to do is go to the PM webpage that I provided a link to and click on the graphs at the bottom of the page. Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 Cover Story - Popular Mechanics


BTW, what research have YOU done? Iâ??m not an engineer or architect, but I worked n lower NYC for a quarter of a century, and was a kid when they built the WTC. I was there on 9/11, and for the bombing of the WTC in 1993 as well.

I met an architect on the subway, while leaving lower NYC on 9/11, before the collapse of WTC towers one and two. He told me that they would collapse - from the heat of the jet fuel fires, and other factors. I didn't know what to think at the time, but that is exactly what happened a short time later when I got home and turned on the TV.

Your side has not proven anything, and the burden of proof is on the believer. At least, NIST and other professionals use theories and hypothesis' when they present research.


Another thing: I've been following the 9/11 conspiracy stuff on this board for several years. Unless I missed it, there has not been anybody from NYC's Greater Metropolitan Area, which is 20 million people, that has expressed a belief the United States government carried out the attacks of 9/11.

Out of twenty million people, I'm sure that there are a few that believe it, but none on this message board that I am aware of. Maybe a few will eventually post their opinion, but if they do it will be for the first time here. About the closest thing it was some postings by a fellow (not from New York) that worked on the cleanup of Ground Zero, after 9/11, who was skeptical of the government's story. He has since left. He had no evidence of foul play, either. Not one other New Yorker, or one of the 20 Million in the area, to the best of my knowledge, has posted a belief on the Cannabis.com politics forum that the government was responsible for 9/11. You also find very few people from the NYC area, that think this way, on various other 9/11 "conspiracy" sites. That should tell you something.

Unfortunately I am not a New Yorker so I don’t really understand why you’ve placed their opinion on such a high pedestal.

Most importantly I will note that I do not form my beliefs based on how many people share them.
Do you know how many new Yorkers believe that Jews are responsible for the fall of the towers?

I am also not an architect but lucky for me I have a high level education in physics and chemistry and can understand very high level scientific discussions. Maybe this is the reason the problems with the official story are so obvious, maybe not.

As well I do not primarily bring my concerns with the official story to the twin towers. I don’t believe that I am in the position to discredit what has been put forth.

I primarily am interested and am informed on the pentagon crashes and tower 7 because they have the most obviously flawed stories. Obvious to anyone willing to look.

I have personally done the calculations proving the official story wrong in a few areas, if your interested I could share. I suspect you are not.


It is humorous that your argument seems mainly to be based on the fact that you haven’t seen new Yorkers on a Cannabis message board. As if the opinions of these people dictate truth, or that these people are some how more critical and educated than the rest of the world. Cute

Here is a pretty good video, Don’t assume that I base my opinion on this as I don’t. I acutely only found it a few weeks ago.

I ask that you try not to automatically dismiss what is said, please think about it.

Why did WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 collapse?: Were there explosives planted? - Google Video

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harris7

Unfortunately I am not a New Yorker so I donâ??t really understand why youâ??ve placed their opinion on such a high pedestal.

It's not a "pedestal" - thousands died, many thousands more were severly injured and/or traumatized, and the whole area was like a DMZ zone for a year.

Most importantly I will note that I do not form my beliefs based on how many people share them.
Do you know how many new Yorkers believe that Jews are responsible for the fall of the towers?

No, I don't know how many New Yorkers believe that Jews are responsible for the towers. Do you?
Most people think Muslim terrorists did it. Even most Muslims agree with this.

I am also not an architect but lucky for me I have a high level education in physics and chemistry and can understand very high level scientific discussions. Maybe this is the reason the problems with the official story are so obvious, maybe not.

Many architects and engineers, professionals and educators from MIT to Columbia University and more, have issued various theories on it, and certainly can, at the very least, "understand very high level scientific discussions"

As well I do not primarily bring my concerns with the official story to the twin towers. I donâ??t believe that I am in the position to discredit what has been put forth.

I primarily am interested and am informed on the pentagon crashes and tower 7 because they have the most obviously flawed stories. Obvious to anyone willing to look.

There wasn't much left to look at.

I have personally done the calculations proving the official story wrong in a few areas, if your interested I could share. I suspect you are not.

I'd appreciate it - but cannot guarantee that I'd understand it.


It is humorous that your argument seems mainly to be based on the fact that you havenâ??t seen new Yorkers on a Cannabis message board. As if the opinions of these people dictate truth, or that these people are some how more critical and educated than the rest of the world. Cute

---

If the twin towers were destroyed by the planes, but somebody had enough prior knowledge of it to put explosives in Building 7, people would be very interested - especially then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Governor Pataki, the FBI, the District Attorney of NYC, and many other people. The only explanation that the conspiracy people seem to come up with is that they are all part of the "plot". I do not think so. I also repeat my assertion that very few New Yorkers believe that the government was responsible for 9/11 - and that is the crux of the statement, not now many of them post their opinion, one way or the other, on Cannabis.com.

LoL the "I was there" excuse.....................I think we just have to PULL IT

â??It's not a "pedestal" - thousands died, many thousands more were severly injured and/or traumatized, and the whole area was like a DMZ zone for a year.â?�

-??? And that makes their opinion the dictator of fact? If every new Yorker believe the world was flat it wouldnâ??t make it flat. Do you understand what Iâ??m saying?

â??No, I don't know how many New Yorkers believe that Jews are responsible for the towers. Do you?â?�

actually a lot their belief is based on the protocols of Zion, theres acctualy a movie about it. All Iâ??m saying is that new Yorkers believe many things, it doesnâ??t matter.

â??Many architects and engineers, professionals and educators from MIT to Columbia University and more, have issued various theories on it, and certainly can, at the very least, "understand very high level scientific discussions"â?�

yes? thus their discussions on the topic are at a high level. A level most people cannot understand well. Luckily I have the education and can understand it and personally interpret it and their arguments. You on the other hand (as said) are educated on the subject and will have a lower comprehension level if you bothered to read their articles. Because of this you accept the â??expertsâ?� opinion because you donâ??t understand enough of it to even look for errors (not an insult, 90% of people arenâ??t educated to this level in this highly specific direction).

â??There wasn't much left to look at.â?�

?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

The only explanation that the conspiracy people seem to come up with is that they are all part of the "plot". I do not think so. .

---

So, you group all conspiracy theorists together then assume we all have the same beliefs for the same reasons. easier that confronting what I say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harris7

â??It's not a "pedestal" - thousands died, many thousands more were severly injured and/or traumatized, and the whole area was like a DMZ zone for a year.â?�
-??? And that makes their opinion the dictator of fact? If every new Yorker believe the world was flat it wouldnâ??t make it flat. Do you understand what Iâ??m saying?
â??No, I don't know how many New Yorkers believe that Jews are responsible for the towers. Do you?â?�
actually a lot their belief is based on the protocols of Zion, theres acctualy a movie about it. All Iâ??m saying is that new Yorkers believe many things, it doesnâ??t matter.
â??Many architects and engineers, professionals and educators from MIT to Columbia University and more, have issued various theories on it, and certainly can, at the very least, "understand very high level scientific discussions"â?�

yes? thus their discussions on the topic are at a high level. A level most people cannot understand well. Luckily I have the education and can understand it and personally interpret it and their arguments. You on the other hand (as said) are educated on the subject and will have a lower comprehension level if you bothered to read their articles. Because of this you accept the â??expertsâ?� opinion because you donâ??t understand enough of it to even look for errors (not an insult, 90% of people arenâ??t educated to this level in this highly specific direction).

â??There wasn't much left to look at.â?�
?
So, you group all conspiracy theorists together then assume we all have the same beliefs for the same reasons. easier that confronting what I say?

---

You have not provided one original thought to this topic - you claim to have extraordinary knowledge of this subject, but you have yet to show anything that demonstrates it. Is this because nobody here is qualified to understand your reasoning? I don't even know what to "confront" about what you say. The parts you wrote about building Seven are not new.

The part about the Jews isn't clear, either. If you've got something to say, why not just say it?

I think it's becoming very clear what we're dealing with here. Stay tuned. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

You have not provided one original thought to this topic - you claim to have extraordinary knowledge of this subject, but you have yet to show anything that demonstrates it. Is this because nobody here is qualified to understand your reasoning? I don't even know what to "confront" about what you say. The parts you wrote about building Seven are not new.

The part about the Jews isn't clear, either. If you've got something to say, why not just say it?

I think it's becoming very clear what we're dealing with here. Stay tuned. :thumbsup:

---

oh i have nothing to say about the jew causing it. i said that because a significant number of new Yorkers believe the jews planned it. They are wrong.

The reason i said that is because you keep citing the opinions of new yorkers to be of some value or significance when it is not.

It doesnâ??t matter if anyone in new york believes the government had involvement or not.

That is what Iâ??m saying.

I havenâ??t brought up any new information because we arenâ??t talking about the specific events. Would you like to talk about one of the specific events?

How about the pentagonâ?¦
The official story is that the plane hit the building and vaporized.
This is impossible

For several reasons
1) jet fuel doesnâ??t burn not enough
2) the amount of jet fuel in the plane did not contain enough energy to vaporize that much metal
3) if the plane vaporized the metal wouldnâ??t disappear. It would be a vapor while under the hot conditions then would precipitate out of the air once cooled. It would cool only a few feed away. Yet there are no â??puddlesâ?� of metal. Were did it go?
4) it is impossible for an uncontrolled fire to vaporize metal because it has too much surface area exposed to the cold air and couldnâ??t get hot enough

If you would like to have a civil conversation donâ??t change the topic, speak to the points I just mentioned

With love

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harris7

oh i have nothing to say about the jew causing it. i said that because a significant number of new Yorkers believe the jews planned it. They are wrong.
Where did you come up with this idea? Is this documented, or hearsay?

The reason i said that is because you keep citing the opinions of new yorkers to be of some value or significance when it is not.
Why is your opinon any better than 20 million people in the Greater New York area, many of whom lived through it.

It doesnâ??t matter if anyone in new york believes the government had involvement or not.
That is what Iâ??m saying.

I havenâ??t brought up any new information because we arenâ??t talking about the specific events. Would you like to talk about one of the specific events?

How about the pentagonâ?¦
The official story is that the plane hit the building and vaporized.
This is impossible

For several reasons
1) jet fuel doesnâ??t burn not enough
2) the amount of jet fuel in the plane did not contain enough energy to vaporize that much metal
3) if the plane vaporized the metal wouldnâ??t disappear. It would be a vapor while under the hot conditions then would precipitate out of the air once cooled. It would cool only a few feed away. Yet there are no â??puddlesâ?� of metal. Were did it go?
4) it is impossible for an uncontrolled fire to vaporize metal because it has too much surface area exposed to the cold air and couldnâ??t get hot enough

If you would like to have a civil conversation donâ??t change the topic, speak to the points I just mentioned

With love

---

I didn't change the topic. I do not know anything much about the details of the Pentagon crash, but my instincts and intelligence do not sway me to believe that a rocket was used. You claim that the event, as it was claimed to have happened by the government, is "impossible"....which means that it is unfalsifiable, therefore unscientific:

Falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the apparently paradoxical idea that a proposition or theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit consideration of the possibility of its being false.

"Falsifiable" does not mean "false". For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible in principle to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation has not been made. For example, the proposition "All crows are black" would be falsified by observing one white crow.

Any theory not falsifiable is said to be unscientific, but this does not mean it is necessarily nonsense or meaningless. Psychoanalytic theory, for example, is held up by followers of Popper as an example of an ideology rather than a science. A patient regarded by his psychoanalyst as "in denial" about his alcoholism might be viewed as confirming he is an alcoholic because he denies that he is. If he abstains from drinking liquor, the patient is showing how desperate he is to buttress his denials. In other words, there is no way the patient could convincingly demonstrate he is not an alcoholic. This is an example of what Popper called a "closed circle". The proposition that the patient is an alcoholic is not falsifiable. Definition of Falsifiability

I do not think that it is possible to have a meaningful discussion about this, because your mind is already made up. Good day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

I didn't change the topic. I do not know anything much about the details of the Pentagon crash, but my instincts and intelligence do not sway me to believe that a rocket was used. You claim that the event, as it was claimed to have happened by the government, is "impossible"....which means that it is unfalsifiable, therefore unscientific:
.

---

you admit you no little of the crash... yet you have such a strong opinion.


i never said i believe a missile hit the building, i said the government story is impossible
Stop assuming I share the beliefs of others.


impossible dose not mean unfalsifiable, but i am glad you have heard of this concept

For something to be falsifiable it needs to make predictions.

IE, a descriptive theory, for example Freud, has no predictive value. After the event Freud can always explain why, but he can never predict.

A prediction can be proven wrong when it does not occur thus can be falsified.

The problem with this is that Popper, as your quote mentioned, can also explain any human even. Both of these theories explain events well the problem is that they cannot both be correct. Since neither make predictions, we cannot determine which one, or if both, are false.
This is the Value of Falsifiability, please don’t teach me first year critical thinking


The governments story makes predictions for example:
that you would find pools of molten metal around the hole.

Since this prediction was not observed the theory is false.

this is what Falsifiability is.

oh, stop avoiding my comments. please rebut them

Silence…

Defeat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harris7

Silenceâ?¦

Defeat?

---

No, there is no victory or defeat in an internet conversation of this sort. I just have nothing more to say. I do not have the time, resources, or ability to disprove your contention that the collapse of WTC Building 7 was pre-planned. But, the NIST report on building 7 will be out in the spring of 2007 and this may shed more light on the subject. Nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt simply because of the massive destruction of property and evidence on 9/11. The fact that bin laden ADMITTED* to being responsible for it is a pretty good indicaton of where the blame lies.

Nobody wins or loses in an exchange like this, which is not a traditional debate by any stretch of the imagination.

*Full transcript of bin ladenâ??s speech on al jazeera
Al Jazeera English - Archive

Ummmm Usama deny any involvement in the attacks....that fat USAma is a CIA fake....hooked line sinker

YEs it is interesting that Bin (as i call him) denies the attacks 3 times then releases a tape admitting it.

hmm, It is possible the tape was fake? yes possible
Is it possible that the tape was not interpreted properly? also possible

trusting that tape takes a lot of faith

I highly doubt that Al Jazeera would interpret the tape incorrectly.

9/11 was not bin laden's first terrorist attack, and I don't see why it is unlikely that he did it - especially with the tape that Al Jazeera has.

More binladen video, from Dec. 2001:
NPR: America Responds - Osama bin Laden Videotape

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

9/11 was not bin laden's first terrorist attack, and I don't see why it is unlikely that he did it

---

If you do something, then we can blame all future events similar to it on you. Hmm, strong line of reasoning.



I shall no longer post on this thread,

I will leave saying that I am disappointed that you form such strong opinions about the events, the possible theories and the people who believe them, with such little knowledge of the issue.

This is clear because you were unable to rebut any point I made and tried desperately to change topics when pressed. And you said your self that you know little of the event in question.

Thanks for reconfirming my beliefs,

The asshole admitted it, and Al Jazeera published the speech where he takes credit! What more do you want?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

The asshole admitted it, and Al Jazeera published the speech where he takes credit! What more do you want?

---

are you kidding?

If Santa Claus said he did it would that mean its all OK?

So what if he says he did it, that proves nothing - other than he says he did it.

A lot of us are not looking for whacked-out theories just the truth and we are NOT buying your governments story that 19 men with boxcutters defeated the greatest nation on Earth. Or maybe that's the real terror right there?

However, I digress....

The key issue here for me is NOT the fact that the BBC reported WTC7 it is how they behaved afterwards:

1. Denied it and claimed they "lost the tape" - Utter BS
2. Video was removed from You-Tube and Google Video - several times
3. BBC denies the report is real
4. BBC back-tracks
5. BBC will not give News Source
6. BBC Whine about being labelled conspirators (lol WTF?)

This type of behaviour is piss-poor and certainly not what I expect for my Licence fee (We pay for the BBC each year!) but it just goes to show how the media really behaves and what they are actually used for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

The asshole admitted it, and Al Jazeera published the speech where he takes credit! What more do you want?

---

One last thing.

I never said I didn’t believe he did it.
I acutely believe that Middle eastern terrorists flew the planes into the buildings. I don’t really care who “masterminded” it.

I believe the use of Osama by the government and the media is to give the public someone to direct their anger from the events at. It is necessary to give the public an object to hate and “war” against, being at war with terrorism is too intangible to sustain a war effort.

Blind the public with their emotions then attack an unrelated country...
Smart government, dumb public

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta9 UK

are you kidding?

If Santa Claus said he did it would that mean its all OK?

We knew it was bin laden before he admitted it - he'd threatened, and attacked, us before.

So what if he says he did it, that proves nothing - other than he says he did it.

He's the number one suspect - and all of the cards show that his guys did it.

A lot of us are not looking for whacked-out theories just the truth and we are NOT buying your governments story that 19 men with boxcutters defeated the greatest nation on Earth. Or maybe that's the real terror right there?

The U.S., in case you have not heard was not "defeated" - it was attacked by lunatics.

However, I digress....

The key issue here for me is NOT the fact that the BBC reported WTC7 it is how they behaved afterwards:

1. Denied it and claimed they "lost the tape" - Utter BS
2. Video was removed from You-Tube and Google Video - several times
3. BBC denies the report is real
4. BBC back-tracks
5. BBC will not give News Source
6. BBC Whine about being labelled conspirators (lol WTF?)

This type of behaviour is piss-poor and certainly not what I expect for my Licence fee (We pay for the BBC each year!) but it just goes to show how the media really behaves and what they are actually used for.

---

I don't mind complaints about the government of the United States, when they have some basis in fact - but you're going off in the wrong direction if you think that a bunch of menatlly-ill religous fanatics with sharp objects are incapable of hijacking planes. It had been done before. The crew, captain, and passengers probably thought, and were told by the terrorists, that the plane was being hijacked and taken somewhere to land. Planes were never before used as missiles. They didn't get away with it on the plane that crashed in PA, Flight 93. The passengers knew that the other hijacked planes were crashed into buildings.

These hijackings were partially the fault of the airlines and the FAA because the captain's cabin was not locked.

The aftermath of 9/11, and how the U.S. reacted, elicits different views and opinions. I would have tracked down and killed as many Taliban and Al Quada people as possible, right after 9/11 - including mass bombings in the mountains near the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. These people are crazy, and need to out-crazed. It was a huge mistake to arm them against the Russians in the first place, and they paid us back with attacks. We should have let the U.S.S.R. have that place, and not interfered. So much for dealing with religous fanatics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harris7

One last thing.

I never said I didnâ??t believe he did it.
I acutely believe that Middle eastern terrorists flew the planes into the buildings. I donâ??t really care who â??mastermindedâ?� it.

I believe the use of Osama by the government and the media is to give the public someone to direct their anger from the events at. It is necessary to give the public an object to hate and â??warâ?� against, being at war with terrorism is too intangible to sustain a war effort.

Blind the public with their emotions then attack an unrelated country...
Smart government, dumb public

---

Now you're making some sense. It was our fault for arming the people that became Taliban and Al Quada, but the government wanted to stop Communist expansion in Afghanistan. I would have let the Russians have the place. The people that we helped set up one of the worst regimes in the world - the Taliban, who repaid us by harboring bin laden and his ilk. One of the main resentments that bin laden had toward the U.S., besides the fact that we're not Islamic, was the fact that we provided military advisors and weapons, but not enough military support! After the way the idiotic Carter administration fucked-up in the Iran hostage crisis, I guess they figured we would back down after 9/11, also.