Conspiracy theories

JimmyJeffers · August 23, 2020

PhilM said:
Exactly. If like @Dymak said that they had prior knowledge of the plan and perhaps even to some extent facilitated it, I’d be more inclined to agree.

Why? It needs less people involved ultimately just as effective. But a mass organised conspiracy involving hundred if not thousands... sorry, but no.

It was a shocking event make no mistake. Hopefully we see nothing like it again.
Although difficult to really prove, personally think racism and xenophobia have steadily increased since 9/11 leading to where we are now. I’ve no doubt that it was used as an excuse to carry out nefarious actions which has helped fuel the conspiracies.

JimmyJeffers · August 23, 2020

Can we talk about the moon landings now please?

magicjuan · August 23, 2020

WA Toffee said:
Yes it was. So are you suggesting it was a pre-written script that they read out too early or something else?

I am not 'saying' anything, I would suggest there was an expectation for it to collapse fed to news agencies, despite minimal effect from the 'strikes'.
The premise of 'Chinese Whispers' runs a long way through all of this, creating, sometimes deliberately, somes times accidentally, misinformation that completely undermines any planning for 'events'. It doesn't needs a huge cast for this just an awareness of how the chain works.
That's my 'opinion'. What's yours?

WA Toffee · August 23, 2020

magicjuan said:
I am not 'saying' anything, I would suggest there was an expectation for it to collapse fed to news agencies, despite minimal effect from the 'strikes'.
The premise of 'Chinese Whispers' runs a long way through all of this, creating, sometimes deliberately, somes times accidentally, misinformation that completely undermines any planning for 'events'. It doesn't needs a huge cast for this just an awareness of how the chain works.
That's my 'opinion'. What's yours?

You actually raise something I hadn't really thought of before - that there may have been an expectation that it would collapse. Was it structurally unsound already (unlikely), or had they noticed that it had become seriously damaged (plausible), or perhaps some other reason. Or maybe it was just one of 100 reports given in the heat of the moment which were not accurate. I certainly don't believe it was pre-planned to bring it down. No-one ever really talks about wtc7, it is always just the twin towers, so what would be the point?

magicjuan · August 23, 2020

JimmyJeffers said:
I don’t know how people can say ‘you would expect this to happen if you flew a plane into a building’ etc. It’s not like we can compare it to many previous examples of planes being flown into skyscrapers.

As an aside @magicjuan seems a very smart man and I generally like a lot of his posts. Can’t get on board with this one though.

Thanks for the 'credit', but no one needs to get 'on board'. All I ever do is read and gather as much information as I can from both sides of the 'argument' and multiple sources, I then form an opinion. Any points I raise are ones that haven't been explained to my satisfaction, it doesn't matter about anyone else's, they have sourced their information themselves, but I never readily accept the official version of anything. Imagine how bad the world would be if the majority did just that...imagine.

verreauxi · August 23, 2020

WA Toffee said:
You actually raise something I hadn't really thought of before - that there may have been an expectation that it would collapse. Was it structurally unsound already (unlikely), or had they noticed that it had become seriously damaged (plausible), or perhaps some other reason. Or maybe it was just one of 100 reports given in the heat of the moment which were not accurate. I certainly don't believe it was pre-planned to bring it down. No-one ever really talks about wtc7, it is always just the twin towers, so what would be the point?

I found this interesting, sensible, and parsimonious (edit: I'm certain there was an expectation it would collapse as it was damaged during the N. Tower collapse):

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest

The long-awaited report from the NIST conclusively rebuts the claims put forth by conspiracy theorists that explosives caused the collapse of WTC 7.

www.popularmechanics.com

davids · August 23, 2020

Whatever happened to the Covid spread by 5G?
Seems to have morphed into the now popular Covid is a hoax and all doctors and nurses are on the take from Bill Gates.

JimmyJeffers · August 23, 2020

magicjuan said:
Thanks for the 'credit', but no one needs to get 'on board'. All I ever do is read and gather as much information as I can from both sides of the 'argument' and multiple sources, I then form an opinion. Any points I raise are ones that haven't been explained to my satisfaction, it doesn't matter about anyone else's, they have sourced their information themselves, but I never readily accept the official version of anything. Imagine how bad the world would be if the majority did just that...imagine.

I was just trying to be nice

Dymak · August 23, 2020

verreauxi said:
I found this interesting, sensible, and parsimonious (edit: I'm certain there was an expectation it would collapse as it was damaged during the N. Tower collapse):

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest

The long-awaited report from the NIST conclusively rebuts the claims put forth by conspiracy theorists that explosives caused the collapse of WTC 7.

www.popularmechanics.com

I'm not sure whether you are using the NIST reference as something that supports the narrative that the building collapsed due to fire, or as something that makes it utterly laughable, as it is seen by many?

With regards to WT7, it was very much a secondary event that nobody was arsed about on the day following the collapse of the two main towers. Something that went under the radar....almost!

If it was brought down by explosives, and as far as I'm concerned the nature of its collapse shows that it clearly was, then my next question is why bring it down? It wasn't part of the terror, not really.

It was of course, in very close proximity to the twin towers, so on the one hand if there was a conspiracy, you have a ready made excuse for its collapse (the one that was broadcast on the BBC 40 minutes before its collapse and continues to be put forward in the NIST report to this day).

On the other hand, if there was a conspiracy, why feel the need to bring the whole of WT7 down? Why not just set it on fire?

I'm just making the point that if you do subscribe to the idea that WT7 was brought down with explosives, then it follows that there was something significant going on in WT7, something that had to be pulverised! Not just set on fire like Grenfell.

I'm not the Oracle, I don't claim to know the truth, but I'm sure as hell not accepting that NIST 'explanation' of how/why WT7 collapsed. Why? Because it's BS mate, that's why!

verreauxi · August 23, 2020

Dymak said:
I'm not the Oracle, I don't claim to know the truth, but I'm sure as hell not accepting that NIST 'explanation' of how/why WT7 collapsed. Why? Because it's BS mate, that's why!

How very scientific of you. Carry on then...

davids · August 23, 2020

Dymak said:
I'm not sure whether you are using the NIST reference as something that supports the narrative that the building collapsed due to fire, or as something that makes it utterly laughable, as it is seen by many?

With regards to WT7, it was very much a secondary event that nobody was arsed about on the day following the collapse of the two main towers. Something that went under the radar....almost!

If it was brought down by explosives, and as far as I'm concerned the nature of its collapse shows that it clearly was, then my next question is why bring it down? It wasn't part of the terror, not really.

It was of course, in very close proximity to the twin towers, so on the one hand if there was a conspiracy, you have a ready made excuse for its collapse (the one that was broadcast on the BBC 40 minutes before its collapse and continues to be put forward in the NIST report to this day).

On the other hand, if there was a conspiracy, why feel the need to bring the whole of WT7 down? Why not just set it on fire?

I'm just making the point that if you do subscribe to the idea that WT7 was brought down with explosives, then it follows that there was something significant going on in WT7, something that had to be pulverised! Not just set on fire like Grenfell.

I'm not the Oracle, I don't claim to know the truth, but I'm sure as hell not accepting that NIST 'explanation' of how/why WT7 collapsed. Why? Because it's BS mate, that's why!

It may well depend on what was stored in WT7.

magicjuan · August 23, 2020

JimmyJeffers said:
I was just trying to be nice

Me too.

magicjuan · August 23, 2020

Dymak said:
I'm not sure whether you are using the NIST reference as something that supports the narrative that the building collapsed due to fire, or as something that makes it utterly laughable, as it is seen by many?

With regards to WT7, it was very much a secondary event that nobody was arsed about on the day following the collapse of the two main towers. Something that went under the radar....almost!

If it was brought down by explosives, and as far as I'm concerned the nature of its collapse shows that it clearly was, then my next question is why bring it down? It wasn't part of the terror, not really.

It was of course, in very close proximity to the twin towers, so on the one hand if there was a conspiracy, you have a ready made excuse for its collapse (the one that was broadcast on the BBC 40 minutes before its collapse and continues to be put forward in the NIST report to this day).

On the other hand, if there was a conspiracy, why feel the need to bring the whole of WT7 down? Why not just set it on fire?

I'm just making the point that if you do subscribe to the idea that WT7 was brought down with explosives, then it follows that there was something significant going on in WT7, something that had to be pulverised! Not just set on fire like Grenfell.

I'm not the Oracle, I don't claim to know the truth, but I'm sure as hell not accepting that NIST 'explanation' of how/why WT7 collapsed. Why? Because it's BS mate, that's why!

User Clip: September 11, 2001: Evidence of Controlled Demolition of World Trade Center Bulding 7

Richard Gage cites evidence that WTC 7 was taken down on September 11, 2001 by a controlled demolition. Funny how Americans watch thousands of episodes of Crime Dramas on TV--but won't ask questions about the biggest crime on American soil in the 21st century. They lied and lied and lied about...

www.c-span.org

Dymak · August 23, 2020

verreauxi said:
How very scientific of you. Carry on then...

Nobody with scientific expertise has even dared to suggest that it could be BS, have they? That’s how scientifically strong the NIST report is, it’s unquestionable, undeniable, scientific fact!

In truth, plenty of learned scientific professionals consider it to be a load of BS.