I agree, BUT the so-called Al Qaeda you speak of did NOT remove the 4th amendment, politicians did through the Patriot Act…Benjamin_LK wrote:The term pull it, does not exist in reference to demolition. It exists to note a strategic retreat (pull back, pull out). Over 300 firefighters had already died that day from collapsing WTC Towers 1 & 2. The fire chief made the distinct order to get out of there. Which makes sense, that's a lot of firefighters lost out of the New York City Fire Department, isn't it? Look, the fact is that there are scum out there known as al qaeda who want to remake the Middle East into a Medieval Dictatorship, but we're stuck with a powerful clique on our side who want us to win by rejecting the commandments of God. What's sad is yes, we're stuck between two wicked camps, neither of which is noble, throwing away our national standards of etiquette so that now we look barbaric to most other word cultures and you're a precious gem for actually being a nice guy with some manners to you, and there's the party war practice, where politicians party on Martha's Vineyard while plenty of us have to deal with unemployment, low budgets, etc. Is it complicated for a conspiratorial mindset, sure, but at the same time, it's true, it isn't a good vs. bad guy, and there isn't some grand, fully conscious, unified singular wicked entity that runs all wickedness, but all truly comes from the same master, Satan. There are plenty of less than decent politicians and policies on either side, but it's nothing we haven't been warned about before.freedomforall wrote:For clarity, just who is "you guys?"Kmart201 wrote:You guys all know that the sky isn't blue right? And mountains aren't made of rock..... The sun doesn't even exist. blah blah blah. That is to all those people who watch the trade towers fall and still believe there werent explosives. No structural building in the world would or could fall like all three of the WTC buildings did that day without help. I would like to see anyone demonstrate to me that I am wrong. Cmon people, lets see you do it if you are so sure. Go crash a plane into 1000 buildings and you will never have that result.
I fully believe the towers were brought down by explosives, including 7. That's why I used the word "pulled". It is a word used for that very purpose. I was merely wondering if for what structural damage there was to 7, was it enough to warrant pulling it? Seems mighty strange.
The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
- ChantDownBabylonNWO
- captain of 10
- Posts: 42
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
- ChantDownBabylonNWO
- captain of 10
- Posts: 42
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
So you respond with an ad hominem attack? What about the 2.3 Trillion dollars reported missing by the Pentagon on 9/10? What about the free-fall speed of the collapse of WTC 7? What about Habeus Corpus? Did Al Qaeda trample on the Bill of Rights? Do you not think we live in a Police State? Did Al Qaeda enforce the Police State? Does the NSA spy on all of its population and many of the worlds?Benjamin_LK wrote:I have nothing to fear. Once again, in your very accusation, you lied about me, you cried (hypocritically) about how much of a martyr you think you are like the Hypocrites mentioned by Jesus Christ, then you suddenly figured that by trying to cite your little scripture, I would magically shut up and accept your authority as prophetic, without a single question?Again, reasoning of this sort is the reason why no one, especially people like me, ever take truthers seriously, or have the slightest ounce of fear when Truthers false take the name of God in Vain to try and scare me. By typing away at your keyboard, you pretty much confirmed my suspicions of dishonesty.2BFree wrote:Really?.. Really??? :ymsick: You think it's funny 3000+ people died that day.Benjamin_LK wrote: Hey Obiwan, RKOwens and RIP are good video sources that are funny, and debunking of the 9/11 liars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nope, you lied
You think it's funny that everything changed after that day.
One again, you lie
You think it's funny to live in a police state.
A bunch of whiny crybabies, and liars, considering that most of us don't get dragged out of our homes, tarred and feathered, or shot dead in your home in plain sight of your wife and kids, early church members got that. And yet, these delusional truthers complain that somehow they suffer a fate like the Jews in the Holocaust, without getting arrested or sent to prison. Grow up, quit whining, quit crying wolf, quit making yourself the fake styrofoam cross, and quit throwing a hissy fit because the voice of the American people doesn't vote for the politician that you adore. Like an ostrich with his head in the sand, people can still see your rear poking up, when you can't see them
You think it's funny to poke fun at people who are just trying to make sense of that day since the government version of events is so unbelievable and leaves so many questions unanswered.
Which part, read "debunking 9/11" shows that a lot of the accusations of the government go over the edge, even for the average American, plus, the camp of 9/11 truthers contains many claims that are lies. Perhaps you could do well to sort out the truther claims that are decent, versus the ones that are lies and worthy of the dung heap?
http://www.debunking911.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I would be very careful who you judge to be liars since that false judgement may return to you in the end or as Nephi would say "at the last day".
If you want to discuss the matter with me, forget the ad hominems, forget the red herrings, forget the poisoning the well, forget the fallacious reasoning in general. Because all such reasoning really does, is make one look foolish.
Questions don't hurt and I think we are grown ups and must discuss these serious issues as adults, not name calling or accusations, that goes for truthers and non-truther?? alike. No ONE ever takes truthers seriously? I am not a fan but Alex Jones has millions of listeners per day, so its not "NO ONE". Our testosterone should not passively spew out from behind the safety of a computer screen. Critical thinking and intelligent discussions should prevail when discussing the questions about what has happened to our land during and after 9/11. Can you really discount false-flag attacks as a means to usurp power in this country and many other? The Reichstag fire? The Gulf of Tonkin? The Lusitania? Pearl Harbor? Freedom of information act has gone a long way in clearing up these issues and the fact that they have and do happen.
- Army Of Truth
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1828
- Location: Rivers of Babylon
- Contact:
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
Ben, did you ever answer why you think WTC 7 fell in a symetrical free-fall in 6.5 seconds when no plan hit that building and even NIST admits they do not know why it fell? And the fact that no steel framed building has ever fallen due to fires in the history of steel buildings before or after 9/11? Or even why BBC reporter Jane Standley reported that WTC 7 fell 26 minutes BEFORE it actually fell? (If you did, I apologize. I didnt have time to sift through these 106+ pages of evidence on this thread.) These are questions that nobody has yet to answer except for the 9/11 truthers who say that it was obviously planned that way.
-
- Gnolaum ∞
- Posts: 16479
- Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
Planned that way? Correct! 911 was a methodically planned false flag op. End of story. On the spot witnesses are a whole lot more credible reports than the commie owned media, whose only purpose is to brainwash the American people into thinking everything done destructively inside the country is perpetrated by those without. Not so. Crooked government will go to great lengths to cause problems even in killing its own people.Army Of Truth wrote:Ben, did you ever answer why you think WTC 7 fell in a symetrical free-fall in 6.5 seconds when no plan hit that building and even NIST admits they do not know why it fell? And the fact that no steel framed building has ever fallen due to fires in the history of steel buildings before or after 9/11? Or even why BBC reporter Jane Standley reported that WTC 7 fell 26 minutes BEFORE it actually fell? (If you did, I apologize. I didnt have time to sift through these 106+ pages of evidence on this thread.) These are questions that nobody has yet to answer except for the 9/11 truthers who say that it was obviously planned that way.
Read: None Dare Call It Conspiracy
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1892
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
So what's the LDSFF community view on why WTC7 was destroyed?
The normal explanation that I've seen is that "they" wanted to destroy evidence (either the DoD accounting issues, 9/11 planning material, or some Giuliani something or other). But it seems like a bit of an overreaction to blow up a building to just get rid of some documents, instead of, say, just shredding them.
The normal explanation that I've seen is that "they" wanted to destroy evidence (either the DoD accounting issues, 9/11 planning material, or some Giuliani something or other). But it seems like a bit of an overreaction to blow up a building to just get rid of some documents, instead of, say, just shredding them.
- Army Of Truth
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1828
- Location: Rivers of Babylon
- Contact:
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
I bet it's not an overreaction to Larry Silverstein! (he's the owner of the WTC complex)Stacy Oliver wrote:So what's the LDSFF community view on why WTC7 was destroyed?
The normal explanation that I've seen is that "they" wanted to destroy evidence (either the DoD accounting issues, 9/11 planning material, or some Giuliani something or other). But it seems like a bit of an overreaction to blow up a building to just get rid of some documents, instead of, say, just shredding them.
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1892
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
So was Silverstein, whose a reasonably rich guy but a relative nobody, behind all of 9/11?
- Army Of Truth
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1828
- Location: Rivers of Babylon
- Contact:
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
No. He's just a puppet who knew what was coming and cashed in on it. Remember, Silverstein signed a 99-year lease taking control of the Trade Center in July 2001 and his insurance included "acts of terrorism" - just weeks before 9/11. How convenient!
Sounds like he actually received over $5 BILLION from insurance from the other buildings being demolished.
http://www.storyleak.com/world-trade-ce ... lions-911/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sounds like he actually received over $5 BILLION from insurance from the other buildings being demolished.
http://www.storyleak.com/world-trade-ce ... lions-911/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1892
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
Why'd anyone tell him about it? Was his cooperation necessary for the plan?
- Army Of Truth
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1828
- Location: Rivers of Babylon
- Contact:
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
Good question! :ymapplause: Just one of hundreds of unanswered questions by our LDGs (Latter-Day Gadiantons) and yet another one that wasn't in the official 9/11 "Omission" Commision report. :-$ :-$ :-$Stacy Oliver wrote:Why'd anyone tell him about it? Was his cooperation necessary for the plan?
Also Rudy Giuliani knew that this building would be coming down. Who told him too???
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1892
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
Why should the Commission have investigates it? It seems like the only evidence that he was involved is that he cashed in (as any lease holder would have). His behavior seems entirely consistent with an innocent person.
But circling back for a second, why did Silverstein can't WTC7 destroyed? If he's already cashing in on the towers, why does he chance it with building 7? And if he's just so greedy that he's willing to demolition another building, why not destroy all of the WTC buildings?
But circling back for a second, why did Silverstein can't WTC7 destroyed? If he's already cashing in on the towers, why does he chance it with building 7? And if he's just so greedy that he's willing to demolition another building, why not destroy all of the WTC buildings?
- Army Of Truth
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1828
- Location: Rivers of Babylon
- Contact:
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
Actually, cashing in was not the only thing he did. He is FAR from innocent. Have you see the video clip of him talking with the NY Fire Department and telling them the smartest thing to do (with WTC 7) was to "pull it!", then they watched them demolish that building? First off, the fire department has NOTHING to do with demolishing a building. Secondly, whoever gave the order to "demolish" that building, it takes WEEKS to wire up a building for demolition. It's no wonder the 9/11 "Omission" report did not mention WTC 7. Thirdly, no steel framed building have ever collapsed (before or after 9/11) due to fire and even NIST admits that they do not know why this building fell. But never mind the facts, lets just ship off all this evidence to China and India to get recycled. Nothing to see here folks! :-$Stacy Oliver wrote:Why should the Commission have investigates it? It seems like the only evidence that he was involved is that he cashed in (as any lease holder would have). His behavior seems entirely consistent with an innocent person.
But circling back for a second, why did Silverstein can't WTC7 destroyed? If he's already cashing in on the towers, why does he chance it with building 7? And if he's just so greedy that he's willing to demolition another building, why not destroy all of the WTC buildings?
BTW, I believe all 3 WTC buildings were demolished by explosives, not by accident. All the evidence proves this.
Here's some more research for you:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... ullit.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1892
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
But why did he want building 7 destroyed? He's making all of this money off of the main towers, why chance it with another building when everyone is looking?
You concede that Silverstein was talking to the firefighters. Why would Silverstein tell the firefighters to demolish a building and why would he (a non-demolitions man) use a phrase like "pull it" to give the order? Would he be so highly placed in the conspiracy that he could give the order? Isn't it pretty clear from the context, where he's talking about a concern for a loss of life, that his explanation that he was talking about pulling the firefighters is the most likely explanation?
You concede that Silverstein was talking to the firefighters. Why would Silverstein tell the firefighters to demolish a building and why would he (a non-demolitions man) use a phrase like "pull it" to give the order? Would he be so highly placed in the conspiracy that he could give the order? Isn't it pretty clear from the context, where he's talking about a concern for a loss of life, that his explanation that he was talking about pulling the firefighters is the most likely explanation?
- Army Of Truth
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1828
- Location: Rivers of Babylon
- Contact:
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
Why wouldn't he? He's getting an extra $500 Million? And no, it isn't clear from the context that he's talking about a pulling the firefighters. Why would he say "Pull IT" meaning firefighters when there no firefighters in the building at 5:20pm? All the firefighters were out of the building before noon! Doesn't he know that "it" refers to things and not people? Shouldn't he have said said "PULL THEM"? How hard is that to say? I've watched many building demolitions since I was a kid and I knew that "Pull it" means to demolish the building. I'm not a demolitions expert yet I knew that.Stacy Oliver wrote:But why did he want building 7 destroyed? He's making all of this money off of the main towers, why chance it with another building when everyone is looking?
You concede that Silverstein was talking to the firefighters. Why would Silverstein tell the firefighters to demolish a building and why would he (a non-demolitions man) use a phrase like "pull it" to give the order? Would he be so highly placed in the conspiracy that he could give the order? Isn't it pretty clear from the context, where he's talking about a concern for a loss of life, that his explanation that he was talking about pulling the firefighters is the most likely explanation?
The only rational explanation is that he was trying to "explain away" this building falling but didn't get everything right since he wasn't reading from a script. He was winging it and this is what happens when you "wing" this kind of thing. You get exposed.
BTW, how can you explain away WTC 7 falling in 6.5 seconds? free-fall speed? Symetrically just like a controlled demolition? Everyone admits it wasnt due to fires since it defies physics.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1892
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
WTC7 fell because of the severe damage from debris, etc. from the towers and the fires. It fell so quickly because the weight of the buildings above the flames far exceeded the resistance of weakened frame beneath it. It didn't fall symmetrically, but leaned to the south. http://www.debunking911.com/WTC72.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . The penthouse collapsed before the rest of the building.
I'm sure that you've heard those explanations a thousand times and you don't find them persuasive. I simply think it is far more likely that for the first time ever a steel building collapsed from fire and damage than it is that the leaseholder conspired with firefighters to place hundreds of pounds of explosives in a heavily used building, for some reason told a BBC reporter about it, then announced that he ordered them to explode the building. And then convinced all those people to keep absolutely silent about it. I concede that the official story has unanswerable questions. I simply find those questions far less troubling that any alternative.
I'm sure that you've heard those explanations a thousand times and you don't find them persuasive. I simply think it is far more likely that for the first time ever a steel building collapsed from fire and damage than it is that the leaseholder conspired with firefighters to place hundreds of pounds of explosives in a heavily used building, for some reason told a BBC reporter about it, then announced that he ordered them to explode the building. And then convinced all those people to keep absolutely silent about it. I concede that the official story has unanswerable questions. I simply find those questions far less troubling that any alternative.
- LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
This "severe damage" was never demonstrated in any of the photographs. And no steel frame building in history has ever completely collapsed due to random fires.Stacy Oliver wrote:WTC7 fell because of the severe damage from debris, etc. from the towers and the fires.
You are missing one key point. THERE WAS NO RESISTANCE to the falling building AT ALL for over 100 feet of its FREE FALL. Free Fall is a very specific thing. It is acceleration of 32 feet/(sec*sec). It is the acceleration that objects experience in Earth gravity when they meet exactly ZERO resistance. And this is the acceleration that WTC7 experienced for over 100 feet, as even the lying NIST was forced to admit, after long denials, under an overwhelming weight of evidence.Stacy Oliver wrote:It fell so quickly because the weight of the buildings above the flames far exceeded the resistance of weakened frame beneath it.
No resistance means that ALL supporting columns were severed COMPLETELY, and practically simultaneously, as attested by near perfect symmetry of the collapse for over 100 feet.
Random damage and random office fires do not, and CANNOT produce such outcome. IT IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. Controlled demolitions with pre-planted explosives, on the other hand, do that practically all the time.
See for yourself:Stacy Oliver wrote:It didn't fall symmetrically, but leaned to the south.
The descent is nearly in perfect symmetry for the 100 feet of the Free Fall. That is all that matters. AFTER the Free Fall the pile leans to the south, but that is irrelevant, because that is not the point. DURING the Free Fall the descent is nearly perfectly symmetrical.
It is called the crimp,-- a standard practice in control demolitions to blow first one of the inside, central columns to insure that the building collapses inwards on itself to minimized the damage to surrounding structures. So the fact that the penthouse collapses first is additional evidence for controlled demolition, because it is a standard practice of professional demolition experts.Stacy Oliver wrote:The penthouse collapsed before the rest of the building.
Yes, because they contradict the known laws of physics.Stacy Oliver wrote:I'm sure that you've heard those explanations a thousand times and you don't find them persuasive.
First of all for the first time THREE buildings collapsed, not one. And secondly it is far more likely that we are being lied to by our government than to imagine that the laws of physics took a break on that day.Stacy Oliver wrote:I simply think it is far more likely that for the first time ever a steel building collapsed from fire and damage
Leaseholder was simply and accessory to the crime, not the mastermind, and the firefighters had nothing to do with it, demolition experts did.Stacy Oliver wrote:than it is that the leaseholder conspired with firefighters to place hundreds of pounds of explosives in a heavily used building,
Yes, the news stories were distributed in advance to control the narrative.Stacy Oliver wrote:for some reason told a BBC reporter about it,
He actually said "pull it."Stacy Oliver wrote:then announced that he ordered them to explode the building.
It happens all the time.Stacy Oliver wrote:And then convinced all those people to keep absolutely silent about it.
The official story contains blatant self-contradictions and violates known laws of physics, therefore it is false by definition.Stacy Oliver wrote:I concede that the official story has unanswerable questions.
It is indeed troubling to realize what the government is. But if violation of reason, logic, laws of physics, and of truth itself is "less troubling" to you than the fact that governments have been caught lying and staging false flag operations almost constantly, is a sad commentary either on your ability to think clearly, or on your integrity.Stacy Oliver wrote:I simply find those questions far less troubling that any alternative.
But the truth speaks for itself.
- Army Of Truth
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1828
- Location: Rivers of Babylon
- Contact:
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
Bldg 5 & 6 were damaged far beyond bldg 7 ever was and they never "collapsed". Anyone who can view wtc 7 on youtube can see that wtc 7 came down symmetrically at free-fall speed. Fires dont work that way. That is why steel framed buidings before and after 9/11 have never fallen down due to fires symmetrically at free-fall speed. Its called the law of physics.
The fact that the penthouse fell first proves even further that this was a demolition. The small pockets of fires were mainly on floors 7 & 12.
Btw, who ever said Larry told Jane Standley anything? And who ever said the firefighters or Larry, for that matter, planted the explosives? Is this what the 'debunking 911' site says? Because Larry is far from being the mastermind behind this.
The fact that the penthouse fell first proves even further that this was a demolition. The small pockets of fires were mainly on floors 7 & 12.
Btw, who ever said Larry told Jane Standley anything? And who ever said the firefighters or Larry, for that matter, planted the explosives? Is this what the 'debunking 911' site says? Because Larry is far from being the mastermind behind this.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1892
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
You said that the reason WTC7 was destroyed was because Silverstein wanted more money. I inferred from that that he was at or near the top of the conspiracy.
You also said that he told the firefighters to blow up the building. Was he just going around telling random people to blow up the building?
If Silverstein wasn't the head of the conspiracy, I am interested in hearing your whole theory of it.
You also said that he told the firefighters to blow up the building. Was he just going around telling random people to blow up the building?
If Silverstein wasn't the head of the conspiracy, I am interested in hearing your whole theory of it.
- BroJones
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 8247
- Location: Varies.
- Contact:
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
Stacy,
See Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (please). AE911Truth. You may wish to watch some of the videos, such as "Experts Speak Out".
Also recommend the book, "Another Nineteen," by Kevin Ryan.
We seek an investigation with subpoena power - this is the only way that I know of (short of torture which I totally oppose!) to get answers to precisely WHO was responsible for the explosive/incendiary materials found in evidence, and what their MOTIVES were.
But we can learn a great deal from the physical evidence available in the WTC dust - voices cry from the dust, as it were -- and from videos taken of the great destruction on that day, and from the subsequent cover-ups.
You may also wish to visit my web-page, http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , where I reference four peer-reviewed papers on the subject of the physical evidence of 9/11 foul-play, challenging the "official story" of 9/11.
See Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (please). AE911Truth. You may wish to watch some of the videos, such as "Experts Speak Out".
Also recommend the book, "Another Nineteen," by Kevin Ryan.
We seek an investigation with subpoena power - this is the only way that I know of (short of torture which I totally oppose!) to get answers to precisely WHO was responsible for the explosive/incendiary materials found in evidence, and what their MOTIVES were.
But we can learn a great deal from the physical evidence available in the WTC dust - voices cry from the dust, as it were -- and from videos taken of the great destruction on that day, and from the subsequent cover-ups.
You may also wish to visit my web-page, http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , where I reference four peer-reviewed papers on the subject of the physical evidence of 9/11 foul-play, challenging the "official story" of 9/11.
- Army Of Truth
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1828
- Location: Rivers of Babylon
- Contact:
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
I never said the reason WTC7 was destroyed was because Silverstein wanted more money. He simply benefitted from this conspiracy. I also never inferred that he was at the top of the conspiracy.Stacy Oliver wrote:You said that the reason WTC7 was destroyed was because Silverstein wanted more money. I inferred from that that he was at or near the top of the conspiracy.
I said HE SAID he told the firefighters to blow up the building. I doubt he ever talked to the firefighters and even if he did, there's no way he told them what he said he told them. Firefighters do not demolish buildings. That is not their role.Stacy Oliver wrote: You also said that he told the firefighters to blow up the building. Was he just going around telling random people to blow up the building?
I highly doubt Larry was the head of the conspiracy. I think Cheney knew a lot more than Larry. Just ask Norman Mineta and what happened in that underground bunker. This event was also not included in the 9/11 "Ommission" Commission report.Stacy Oliver wrote: If Silverstein wasn't the head of the conspiracy, I am interested in hearing your whole theory of it.
- LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
There were many overlapping reasons. Silverstine went along with it because he was ordered to, and because he would make a LOT of money on it.Stacy Oliver wrote:You said that the reason WTC7 was destroyed was because Silverstein wanted more money.
Some of the reasons are given at the end of this video, including thousands of SEC files destroyed pertaining to ENRON and Worldcom:
As they say: "Never let a good crisys go to waist" (especially if you yourself caused it).
O, by the way, the Pentagon got hit on that day exactly where all the files regarding the "lost" 2.3 Trillion dollars were, and where the accountants were working on finding them.
Did Silverstein had authority to stand down NORAD and air force, to cause Rumsfeld and Cheney to issue those stand down orders, and the president of US to lie on television? I don't think so. The masterminds were the Rockefellers according to Arron Russso. All the rest were doing their bidding, and many willingly. (Google PNAC Documents, where Rumsfeld, Cheney, and many others in power on that day, called for a "new Perl Harbor" event).Stacy Oliver wrote:I inferred from that that he was at or near the top of the conspiracy.
He is lying. The decision to blow up WTC7 was planned well in advance (because it takes month's to wire such buildings properly). He merely was trying to give a semblance of legitimacy to what was clearly a controlled demolition. He was probably thinking it is hard to assert that the Sun is not shining while looking at it, therefore he gave an excuse for what was so blazingly obvious.Stacy Oliver wrote:You also said that he told the firefighters to blow up the building. Was he just going around telling random people to blow up the building?
I just gave it to you. Google:Stacy Oliver wrote:If Silverstein wasn't the head of the conspiracy, I am interested in hearing your whole theory of it.
- Problem, Reaction, Solution
PNAC Documents
NWO
false flag
Military Industrial Complex and 9-11
"Patriot" Act
and also damn liars
Last edited by LoveIsTruth on September 23rd, 2014, 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1892
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
So blowing up a building is easier than shredding some documents?
Why did the Rockefellers want to destroy Enron, WorldCom, and DoD files? Why did they want Silverstein to make money? Did they owe him a favor? Which Rockefellers? I think that there are still a few of them running around.
Why would Silverstein lie about telling the firefighters to blow up WTC7? What does he gain by that lie?
Why did the Rockefellers want to destroy Enron, WorldCom, and DoD files? Why did they want Silverstein to make money? Did they owe him a favor? Which Rockefellers? I think that there are still a few of them running around.
Why would Silverstein lie about telling the firefighters to blow up WTC7? What does he gain by that lie?
- LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
- LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
Yes. Because if you shred the files you go to jail. This way 19 men with box cutters "shredded" it for them.Stacy Oliver wrote:So blowing up a building is easier than shredding some documents?
There are overlapping interests. People at the top are guided by the devil who seeks to destroy the world, but people below are bought with the allure of "power," greed, and worldly glory. They don't understand that by digging the pit they will end up in it themselves. (1 Nephi 14:3)Stacy Oliver wrote:Why did the Rockefellers want to destroy Enron, WorldCom, and DoD files? Why did they want Silverstein to make money? Did they owe him a favor?
Who is in charge of the family business? Watch the interview here.Stacy Oliver wrote:Which Rockefellers? I think that there are still a few of them running around.
Already answered that in a previous post.Stacy Oliver wrote:Why would Silverstein lie about telling the firefighters to blow up WTC7? What does he gain by that lie?
Bottom line is: we have IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE in Public domain that proves beyond ANY reasonable doubt that 9-11 was a through and through inside job, by definition, and that the government is lying about it. That is the point.
-
- captain of 100
- Posts: 873
Re: The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud
Here is a very well made youtube video that asks questions about the video, pictures, and testimony taken in regards to 9-11
In Plane Sight:
In Plane Sight: