World Trade Center 7 - September 11, 2001

(Disclaimer: I think most conspiraces are normally horseshit. We landed on the moon, the fuel used to get there is measurable and accurate. Aliens do not exist and it was a propaganda effort during the 50's and 60's - etc)

My views and opinions have changed slightly over the past few years.

I feel I've matured, and have become more adept at making adjudicated judgements with all aspects of life.


However, one thing that has not changed is my skepticism of the official 9/11 Commission Report. The pancake theory of World Trade Center 7 does not add up. It never has. The buildings construction

I'm not the only person skeptical, either. 2,330 Architects and Engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation of the events surrounding September 11, 2001. http://www.ae911truth.org

I would like another attempt at a civil debate.

Here is a view of WTC 7 as it begun it's uniform, 7.3 second fall to the ground.


The pancake theory, that the outer rings of the walls fell apart from the central structure causing collapse would be correct - but there is an issue given the vertical beams are not visible, and did not collapse outwards, sideways, horizontally in any matter. Why?





This video quite accurately sums up my skepticism. It is NOT correct to blatantly accept the story of the government, but it is also not correct to accuse the "Bush Administration" of being 100% complicit in carrying out any sort of evil scheme.



NIST admits in the final version of their report that the building falls at near freefall speed. The rate of gravity. 9.8 m/s-29.4 m/s through the progression. There are multiple videos.

But why?

I really don't care anymore.

I think the wrongs committed during the Bush administration, especially with regards to foreign policy, will haunt this country for the remainder of this century.

Whether or not the US government needed a proxy to engage in the Middle East, it still happened.
Like Spector said, it seems as far off as Watergate. There's nothing to be gained from its reassessment.

I really don't care anymore.

I wouldn't either, but with the combinations and freefalling of liberties it's hard to ignore the original source.

-Patriot Act
-NSA massive surveillance programs began collecting ALL data a few days after 9/11
-1 million citizens killed by our country in the Middle East
-Anywhere from $2-8 Trillion in warfare expenditures
-Creation of ISIS

Whether or not the US government needed a proxy to engage in the Middle East, it still happened.

It's obviously a proxy, whether or not they perpetuated it is also a question. But why? Who stands to gain from it? Military defense contractors?

Who else would benefit, globally? I believe that's where most of our answers come from - and we'll probably never have them. Ever. 9/11 was a conspiracy beginning since the 1970's.

Who else would benefit, globally? I believe that's where most of our answers come from - and we'll probably never have them. Ever. 9/11 was a conspiracy beginning since the 1970's.

That depends on if you believe the Rothschild wikipedia article, or if you believe the Rothschild conspiracy.
If you believe the conspiracy, they are to gain from every war ever, excluding any country portrayed as monsters - because they don't own a bank in those countries.

I'm more open to conspiracies than I used to be. There is a large list of things which were considered outrageous conspiracy theories at one point which turned out to be true. That said, I don't understand what the motivation would be for our government to do this. What's to be gained from knocking down a third building that couldn't have been accomplished from just knocking down the twin towers? It seems like a huge risk, and kind of short-sighted, to run two planes into the towers and then knock down a third, relatively insignificant one with a controlled demolition. Why?

I agree, which is why I even question it at all. Of course the government's official story can stand ground scientifically when they cherrypick what to report. That's the entire question I've been trying so make sense of, is what would there be to gain? And I choose to focus on WTC 7 because it wasn't hit by a plane, and was a block away. WTC 1 and WTC 2 can be deemed plausible indefinitely regardless of anyone's thoughts on the matter because they were both hit by large jumbo jets, while WTC 7 was not.
w
I know that there were several agencies hosted in that building, including the SEC which had ongoing investigations that were "destroyed" during the collapse.





There is uncertainty amongst the "truthers" crowd too. I've seen that the LA Times published an article stating that the builiding which housed the SEC, was destroed and nearly 3000-4000 'substantial files' were destroyed along with nearly 45 active cases being destroyed. I have searched everywhere online to find a citation of such article but it doesn't seem to exist anywhere. Not even a screenshot. All I've found that's close may be this:

Which is cropped, and doesn't include the full article to where that quote may have been listed.

Anyways, this is Harvey Pitt. He was the SEC Chairman. He vowed to track down who was short trading before 9/11

Prelude:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/profiting-from-disaster/

An extraordinary number of trades were betting that American Airlines stock price would fall. The trades are called "puts" and they involved at least 450,000 shares of American. But what raised the red flag is more than 80 percent of the orders were "puts", far outnumbering "call" options, those betting the stock would rise. also: NFS, a subsidiary of Fidelity Brokerage, and TD Waterhouse, a discount firm handled the trades

There is zero mention of this in the 9/11 Commission Report. There is no mention of nearly anything that matters in the report. And that's the problem, the official story has been skewed, and most see it as on purpose. I know it's hard to question any official story, but I remain that it is always better to be skeptical than cynical.

I know it's hard to question any official story, but I remain that it is always better to be skeptical than cynical.

I strongly disagree with you there. You should always treat both skepticism and being cynical equally. It's a perfect mixture for using the brain properly...and getting depression.

Anyways, I don't really have much to say on this topic. It seems silly to me that anyone still cares about this. I also find it strange D3V, that you would reference "truthers," considering I always thought you were brighter than those kinds of people. Not some dipshit who thinks someone can become president without being born here.

Whatever the case, if it's real, if it's a conspiracy (it's not), how it currently effects us is in the form of ISIS and debt. That's where focus should be. Trying to figure out who to blame for this, when we already have someone to blame, is extraordinarily pointless. Because in the end, people just want someone to blame, besides themselves, and that's been solved. So it's time to move on.

Anyways, I don't really have much to say on this topic. It seems silly to me that anyone still cares about this.

You're right, nobody should care. The Patriot Act, increased NSA surveillance, 1 million est casulties in the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War) and perpetual war costing more than $2 trillion in IRAQ alone
(you know, the country we said has WMDs after 9/11 and said they were also complicit and responsible for and WE ARE STILL FUCKING OCCUPYING)(http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92D0PG20130314). But if that's not enough for you to care, I pity you - not myself.

I also find it strange D3V, that you would reference "truthers," considering I always thought you were brighter than those kinds of people. Not some dipshit who thinks someone can become president without being born here.

Truthers as in reuters and wikipedia (full of sources)? Kthxbye.

Whatever the case, if it's real, if it's a conspiracy (it's not), how it currently effects us is in the form of ISIS and debt. That's where focus should be. Trying to figure out who to blame for this, when we already have someone to blame, is extraordinarily pointless. Because in the end, people just want someone to blame, besides themselves, and that's been solved. So it's time to move on.

I'm not even agreeing with the truthers, or referencing them. I am questioning the narrative. I see nothing wrong in being skeptical.

All I know is I was obsessed as a kid watching demolition videos. I thought it was the coolest thing ever (for whatever reason) that engineers were smart enough to systematically bring down a building in uniform fashion. I never pursused academics in this field, but I do know whenever I see a building falling as this:



and it is said that falling steel from WTC 2 and office fires caused it I find it absolutely hilarious and false. That's all. No blame on any international conspiracies, just clalling the offical story horseshit.

"We have the power to make this the best generation of mankind in the history of the world or to make it the last." -JFK

Just dropping a link to the older discussion: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread....574#post689574

First 3 steel buildings to completely collapse in the history of steel frame buliding. WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7.

BUT WHY!?

First 3 steel buildings to completely collapse in the history of steel frame buliding. WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7. BUT WHY!?

They were also the first buildings to be smashed by 767s, though (or in the case of WTC7, its bottom floors were left on fire for several hours...has there been another building in history that survived such a conflagration? I don't know)

Not too many buildings have been hit by a plane. And none on the scale of a 757/767. A b25 bomber crashed into the Empire state building in 1945, but was relatively mild in comparison.

But, there have been a few fires:


In '88 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in L.A. burned for 4 hours. It is a 62 story building, but did not collapse.


'91 the 38-story One Meridian Plaza in Philly burned for 18 hours and did not collapse.


in 2004 a 56-story office tower burned for 17 hours and spread accross 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not.


In 2005 a 32-story Windsor building in Spain caught fire and burned for over 48 hours. The entire building was in flames. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing.




2010 an apartment block in Shanghai caught fire and burned for four hours. Did not collapse.






For reference, Germany's Goethe University Tower (32 story)

Haha! Hoooboy! That sure is weird, D3V, but I'm afraid you're wrong. Terrorists from out of the United States who are not being paid, brainwashed, or told what to do, did this. This was all natural, and a random occurrence. Nobody knew it would happen, D3V, so just do us all a favor, and stop grasping for straws. There is nothing watching over anybody. We are not controlled, everyone is free. See? It says right there in the Pledge of Allegiance. Liberty. And as we all know, a country never lies about anything, when it comes to the daily ritual of praying to the flag. Here, go save up money to buy this car so you don't have to think as much.

I never claimed any of that, I'm just questioning the authenticity of an investigation.

Why do I question it? Because look at the fucking map of where WTC 7 is.



It fell to the ground like any normal controlelled demolition. WTC 6 was in between WTC 1 and WTC 7. How does WTC 6 not crumble completely?



The damage and the story is inconsistent. I'm not a fucking scientist, I'm not an investigator, I'm not somebody who specializes in things like this - but I can spot something that doesn't add up.



As you can see, WTC 6 was nearly destroyed by falling debris. Half of the building is gone. But, it did not collapse. And yes, it was also on fire.

Also, the flight manifests of 9/11 are interesting. Nearly half of all people on 9/11 flights that crashed were Active/Reservist military. Not trying to point out conspiracy, I think they are silly. But these are facts, and are interesting at least.

But that leaves the main question, still. Why?

"To go to war"
Why?
"To make money"
For who?
"Illuminati"
That's crazy, D3V, those aren't real. Why would a large group of lizard men disguise themselves as humans, run most world businesses and banks, and feed off of our violence and hate? That's the most ridiculous story I've ever heard, and it doesn't make any sense, nor is it consistent with any old world stories about a global tsunami and lizard men farming for gold in Africa, found in multiple tribes all over the world. You read too much David Icke.

You're right, war and profiting off it has never happened before.

(I wonder when he catches on that I'm being sarcastic)

Looks like you got tricked into thinking I was serious!