WTC Building 7

So some storage barrels of diesel fuel that wasn't even there, and the steel that was there just crumbled onto itself in a matter of 6.5 seconds which is the exact same amount of time that any average building demolition takes place of.

Between 6:10-6:11 you can notice about 6-7 floors simultaneously exhume black smoke as if charges were going off at the same time. It's been almost 9 years since the "attacks" and we still haven't found out a legitimate answer other than "it got hot, and sprinklers weren't working".

Never took you for a Truther.

I'm not a truther, those people are ridiculous. I'm more of a skeptic. I don't think anything of this military precision could've been an inside job, perhaps suggesting that the building were demolished. But just from looking at it, I'd say any level-headed person could see something of this magnitude just doesn't calculate correctly.


As far as we know, nothing could be as we're told. Money, power, influences outside of our understanding are going on all day every day, and we're just a bunch of sheep when you consider how low on the power scale we really are. I mean c'mon, the guy that owned the Twin Towers took out a multi-billion dollar insurance policy on each building a month before 9/11. What the fuck? Not only did he renew that policy such a short time before, but went back into the paperwork and adjusted it to include 'terrorist attacks'.

the guy that owned the Twin Towers took out a multi-billion dollar insurance policy on each building a month before 9/11. What the fuck? Not only did he renew that policy such a short time before, but went back into the paperwork and adjusted it to include 'terrorist attacks'.

That's... suspicious. I say it was the Illuminati!

Fuck you. Illuminati is a joke created by paranoid anti-semetics.

I mean c'mon, the guy that owned the Twin Towers took out a multi-billion dollar insurance policy on each building a month before 9/11. What the fuck? Not only did he renew that policy such a short time before, but went back into the paperwork and adjusted it to include 'terrorist attacks'.

These kinds of claims require citation. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I find that hard to believe without some evidence.

I can agree with you, it's just completely speculation. That's the thing with conspiracies, there usually won't be any evidence to backup unsubstantiated claims, just opinions blown up to any unporportionate amount. The problem with conspiracies in general is people like the 'Zionist' group etc. can completely delegitimize any sort of relaistic argument made on the side of the conspiracy, when they start talking about free masons and the Illuminati controling the world's currency. It's a joke.

However, the insurance scheme was well documented and reported on, but the media never really looked into it as a whole.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/12/06/120...acescan06.html

All of the buildings at the World Trade Center, including buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5, were destroyed beyond repair on September 11, 2001 (see September 11 attacks) as a result of Islamist terrorists crashing large jet airliners into the Twin Towers, and the ensuing fires and building collapses. After a protracted dispute with insurers over the amount of coverage available for rebuilding World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5, a series of court decisions determined that a maximum of $4.55 billion was payable and settlements were reached with the insurers in 2007.The money is being used to rebuild.

I can agree with you, it's just completely speculation. That's the thing with conspiracies, there usually won't be any evidence to backup unsubstantiated claims, just opinions blown up to any unporportionate amount. The problem with conspiracies in general is people like the 'Zionist' group etc. can completely delegitimize any sort of relaistic argument made on the side of the conspiracy, when they start talking about free masons and the Illuminati controling the world's currency. It's a joke. However, the insurance scheme was well documented and reported on, but the media never really looked into it as a whole. http://www.forbes.com/2004/12/06/120...acescan06.html

You're referring to something completely different. There was a disagreement whether or not the attacks should count as a single occurrence or two separate occurrences (which would therefore allow two separate claims.) Nowhere in the article does it say anything remotely close to "the guy that owned the Twin Towers took out a multi-billion dollar insurance policy on each building a month before 9/11" or that he "went back into the paperwork and adjusted it to include 'terrorist attacks'."

The buildings were insured, yes; I don't see an issue with that. There was a dispute over whether the attacks counted as one claim or two; this also seems reasonable. So other than those two facts, you're basically making a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.