And with sights not set right, a less than suitable weapon and queries over the bullets used being capable of the damage caused. If there were no doubts, there'd be no conspiracy.
Naturally it's my opinion. But I find them very tedious and while the subject content is of interest, I just can't take it seriously, it's too americanised. I wasn't calling into question the credentials of the people on there, just the two that I mentioned made the programme more bearable. I wonder if Elon Musk is under threat, they can't be big fans of him.
Just seen the picture of those dickheads (London bankers) on a stag weekend at ground zero waving a blow up doll! Hopefully named & shamed soon!
In my view the conspiracy, if that's the right term, has been fuelled since to divert attention away from the fact that American security is woeful, and should have seen it coming and been better prepared. It looks like they had most of the key bits of intel..
What was the reason the commission gave for WTC 7 collapsing? I saw that the commission also said that finding out who funded 9/11 was of 'little or no consequence'.
The BBC excelled themselves by being first to report the collapse. In fact they reported it about a half hour before it happened. When I first saw the video, I assumed it was just the BBC getting caught using a library picture, while claiming it was live coverage, but despite the timings showing they reported it had fallen, why it had fallen and that there were no fatalities before the event, their claim is "If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that." Being one of only three buildings of that construction to ever collapse that way due to fire, the other two being wtc 1 and wtc2, and all owned by the same guy who had just taken out specific insurance against a terror attack, and other buildings nearby not suffering the same catastrophic failure, you'd expect a rigorous investigation to follow. Especially as the owner admitted they'd 'pulled' the building. They've seemingly never explained who handed them the news, which would be starting point to find what happened. My view is, it made life easier to drop the building as far as insurance and building work is concerned. Somebody cocked up with the press release timings. Quite how they dropped it so quickly is something I don't know. Maybe they applied similar logic to the WTC buildings too. If they owned up to Building 7, it could just highlight that they had a difficult but pragmatic decision to make on the other two Two smouldering shells being dismantled over time, would be a beacon for the success of the terrorists and failures of the security services. Collapsed buildings and fatalities are easier for the propagandists, but would be hellish news if it leaked out. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
Larry Silverstein the owner to the WTC complex gave the order to demolish building 7 after a call from the fire chief. Fortunately for Larry he had recently increased his insurance policy on the whole complex. Lucky Larry received $4.55bn from the insurance claim. But his luck didn't stop there , he regularly held breakfast meetings in the restaurant at the top of WTC 1. Inexplicably on the day of the attacks he didn't turn up for work, neither did his son or daughter who also worked in the building. But it's all a coincidence apparently.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/ Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought. Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.
LARRY SILVERSTEIN CONSPIRACY DEBUNKED Conclusion: After careful scrutiny of this conspiracy theory and information support either sides, one doesn’t need to be a genius to see this is merely a case of exaggerated urban legend/internet hoax, with mixed half-truths, made by a (no disrespect intended) poorly informed conspiracy theorist or some paranoid truth-seeker or someone trying to defend/sympathizing the radical religious cult involved in the attack. https://bharadwajbloging.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/larry-silverstein-conspiracy-debunked/
If only you'd have posted that years ago we could have had this thing wrapped up. I'll send it on to Dr Judy Wood, Engineers, Airline pilots, Architects, Demolition experts who have refuted the official report and tell them how silly they have been.
You then get reports saying the buildings were downed by explosives Lots of information and disinformation about Ive looked into the pentagon plane crash, looks like a missle that hits the side of the building on footage found from security cameras, worth looking into
I've an open mind, if there's something specific from the people you quote that debunks elements of the official report, I'm interested in reading it. Sure, we wouldn't always know if we'd been lied to, but the tendency is for the truth to surface eventually, take the lies about WMD or some of the IRA bombs that were allowed to explode to set communities against the terrorists for example. Many of the conspiracies stretch themselves too far in my view, and end up needing a level of efficiency and co-ordination that simply doesn't exist in the US security services. There's certainly some bulllshit in the official version, such as the passport miraculously floating down, but for me, that points more to people covering up their embarrasment than a full blown conspiracy.
OK so lets go with the explosives brought down the tower theory. Did someone rush into the towers after the planes had hit them with bags or boxes of explosives and place them in the exact locations to bring the towers down? or were the explosives already placed there on the off chance two stray planes would crash into the towers and then they could detonate the explosives and then claim on the insurance?
