I’ll just throw this out there since I just saw it today and it somewhat opened my eyes, maybe some of you have seen it already-I’m not sure how old it is. It’s basically their insight on who was really responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The video is 80 minutes long.[/quote]
If the Government truly wanted to go to war with Iraq it wouldn’t have needed to put all this shit together. Think about it for a minute. Suddam Hussein had been violating UN agreements for quite some time. The UN was already at it’s wits ends. THey would have taken steps to remove Saddam from power in a matter of time. The reason most countries did not back Bush in the war in Iraq was because they wanted to give them more time to cooperate and Bush didn’t want to wait any longer. Most other countries agreed on a policy similar to the one the US proposed, the one main difference was the span of time the would allow Iraq to continue before they took action.
So you mean to tell me that Bush got sooooooooooo impatient that he told the CIA FBI or whoever to come up with a plan to kill thousands of innocent people and to do so using a plan so complicated as this. I mean of all the methods they could have used, tricking all these people into believing someone was hijacking a plane would have been one of the more difficult. You have control towers, you have ground personnel, you have FCC involved, I mean the list goes on and on. To put it simply, this theory does not take into account that there was already a war on terror in the near future. Why the hell go through all the trouble just to speed the process along. It’s bull shit. IMO
The best part of “loose change” is when they present Osama’s word (…“I did not plan the recent attacks…”) as hard evidence but most of the hundreds of experts who conducted the real research are -of course- all part of a sinister plan.
Oh, the glory of the internet century with all it’s conspiricy prophets.
Wow up to #8 on Google Video. Pretty wild. I have read Loose Change 3 is coming. The Producers have been in talks with major film companies to release it to theaters.
So that I am not being misunderstood, first I would like to say that I agree with a lot of the sentiments in the above post. I have serious reservations about the idea that this entire scenario was fabricated to start a war. That’s just absurd.
This video has a lot of questionable sources, articles, theories, etc. However, that being said, one thing that has stood out to me since I saw that movie for the first time is the collapse of WTC 7. That to me is more disturbing than any of the “flashes”, “explosion sounds”, “no plane debris at the Pentagon”, “dummy planes flying into WTC 1 and 2” etc., business.
This movie was the first time I ever even heard of the collapse of WTC 7. And pretty much every other person I’ve asked “Do you remember ever hearing about that?” just shakes their head in dumbfoundedness, as well. I’m not saying it wasn’t covered, but despite the fact that it could have easily been lost in all of the other madness that was going on, you would think that would make fairly big headlines. Yet a lot of people (I’m sure even several of the people reading this post right now) never even heard about WTC 7.
This is not spin. This is fact. WTC 7 housed records of the CIA, FBI, and SEC. The building collapsed at 5 o’clock, 9/11. Not one known casualty (thank God); does that sounds like something terrorists would do? Carefully planning an attack so that no one dies, yet hundreds of official U.S. documents are conveniently lost? Why did this happen?
No one has ever been able to give me a good response to this question. Not one. I’ve stood on the sidelines to very heated arguing about this movie, and when I throw this out to both sides: “What’s the deal with WTC 7?”, they both just stand there and look at me, puzzled looks on their faces…
So that I am not being misunderstood, first I would like to say that I agree with a lot of the sentiments in the above post. I have serious reservations about the idea that this entire scenario was fabricated to start a war. That’s just absurd.
This video has a lot of questionable sources, articles, theories, etc. However, that being said, one thing that has stood out to me since I saw that movie for the first time is the collapse of WTC 7. That to me is more disturbing than any of the “flashes”, “explosion sounds”, “no plane debris at the Pentagon”, “dummy planes flying into WTC 1 and 2” etc., business.
This movie was the first time I ever even heard of the collapse of WTC 7. And pretty much every other person I’ve asked “Do you remember ever hearing about that?” just shakes their head in dumbfoundedness, as well. I’m not saying it wasn’t covered, but despite the fact that it could have easily been lost in all of the other madness that was going on, you would think that would make fairly big headlines. Yet a lot of people (I’m sure even several of the people reading this post right now) never even heard about WTC 7.
This is not spin. This is fact. WTC 7 housed records of the CIA, FBI, and SEC. The building collapsed at 5 o’clock, 9/11. Not one known casualty (thank God); does that sounds like something terrorists would do? Carefully planning an attack so that no one dies, yet hundreds of official U.S. documents are conveniently lost? Why did this happen?
No one has ever been able to give me a good response to this question. Not one. I’ve stood on the sidelines to very heated arguing about this movie, and when I throw this out to both sides: “What’s the deal with WTC 7?”, they both just stand there and look at me, puzzled looks on their faces…
[/quote]
Dude, two ginormous buildings collapsed within dozens of feet of WTC 7 and you are suprised that the building fell down? Truth be told, I’m surprised that ONLY WTC 7 fell down. Remember that there were tons of other buildings around the Twin Towers that had severe structural damage. It’s not like everything else was unscathed and then, all of a sudden, WTC 7 collapsed. The thing was a freaking mess, hence the fact that there were no casualties. It’s like after a major earthquake when engineers declare a building is no longer safe. Some will fall soon after; others remain standing and can be repaired. WTC 7 fell; end of story.
Two other points to consider:
I’m sure that that is not the ONLY building in the US that housed records from the FBI, CIA, etc. Why weren’t those other buildings also (mysteriously) destroyed? What wasn’t FBI and CIA headquarters destroyed?
Why in God’s name would the gov’t concoct this elaborate scheme just to blow up a bunch of records? Wouldn’t they just start a fire in the room where the records were? Or better yet, “hire” a few guys to shred all the documents, the just kill them? Or use covert ops. guys to shred the documents?
I mean which is it: Was 9/11 a scheme to get Americans behind a war on Iraq or a scheme to get rid of a bunch of secret papers the gov’t didn’t want around anymore? It’s a bunch of bullshit.
Not one known casualty (thank God); does that sounds like something terrorists would do? Carefully planning an attack so that no one dies, yet hundreds of official U.S. documents are conveniently lost? Why did this happen?[/quote]
Not one casualty because every one evacuated hours ealier when the planes hit the two towers. Are you being serious with these stupid questions?
[quote]eic wrote:
Dude, two ginormous buildings collapsed within dozens of feet of WTC 7 and you are suprised that the building fell down?[/quote]
It’s actually 355 feet. There was also an entire other street and building (WTC 6) between the towers and WTC 7.
I am, as well. That’s kind of the whole point I was making here.
[quote]Two other points to consider:
I’m sure that that is not the ONLY building in the US that housed records from the FBI, CIA, etc. Why weren’t those other buildings also (mysteriously) destroyed? What wasn’t FBI and CIA headquarters destroyed?
Why in God’s name would the gov’t concoct this elaborate scheme just to blow up a bunch of records? Wouldn’t they just start a fire in the room where the records were? Or better yet, “hire” a few guys to shred all the documents, the just kill them? Or use covert ops. guys to shred the documents?[/quote]
Who knows? It’s just a curiosity I have. Why is it so wrong to believe that there might be a chance that there is some stuff out there that the government doesn’t want anybody to get their hands on. Doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to go and destroy entire goverment agencies.
I’m not even going to address the “war” comment, because I very clearly did so in my last post. But I think the circumstances surrounding WTC 7 are still a bit strange.
I’m not running around with a picket, screaming “Conspiracy!”. I just think it’s possible that there’s more surrounding WTC 7 than the general public has been told. There’s a big difference between “withheld information” and “conspiracy”.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Not one casualty because every one evacuated hours ealier when the planes hit the two towers. Are you being serious with these stupid questions?[/quote]
That’s a good point and one I had not considered nor been presented with. It was absolutely unneccesary, however, for you to resort to your childish comments.
I was actually trying to start a conversation which I am willing to be very open minded about. Chances are nothing really happened. But I think it’s okay to have questions.
You, however, decided to show your level of immaturity by simply saying my questions are “stupid” and that I “talk to too many morons”. Very admirable. I’m actually glad when people say things like that. It lets me know not to take their opinions seriously.
[quote]CC wrote:
eic wrote:
Dude, two ginormous buildings collapsed within dozens of feet of WTC 7 and you are suprised that the building fell down?
It’s actually 355 feet. There was also an entire other street and building (WTC 6) between the towers and WTC 7.
Truth be told, I’m surprised that ONLY WTC 7 fell down.
I am, as well. That’s kind of the whole point I was making here.
Two other points to consider:
I’m sure that that is not the ONLY building in the US that housed records from the FBI, CIA, etc. Why weren’t those other buildings also (mysteriously) destroyed? What wasn’t FBI and CIA headquarters destroyed?
Why in God’s name would the gov’t concoct this elaborate scheme just to blow up a bunch of records? Wouldn’t they just start a fire in the room where the records were? Or better yet, “hire” a few guys to shred all the documents, the just kill them? Or use covert ops. guys to shred the documents?
Who knows? It’s just a curiosity I have. Why is it so wrong to believe that there might be a chance that there is some stuff out there that the government doesn’t want anybody to get their hands on. Doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to go and destroy entire goverment agencies.
I mean which is it: Was 9/11 a scheme to get Americans behind a war on Iraq or a scheme to get rid of a bunch of secret papers the gov’t didn’t want around anymore? It’s a bunch of bullshit.
I’m not even going to address the “war” comment, because I very clearly did so in my last post. But I think the circumstances surrounding WTC 7 are still a bit strange.
I’m not running around with a picket, screaming “Conspiracy!”. I just think it’s possible that there’s more surrounding WTC 7 than the general public has been told. There’s a big difference between “withheld information” and “conspiracy”.
[/quote]
The only question I have for you is WHY???
WHy destroy a building instead of shredding documents???
WHy throw 2 planes into a building to go to a war that was already in the process of happening???
Why throw 2 planes into a building, crash a third plane, but then use a rocket/missile to take out the pentagon???
You see without a motive any accusations are just that accusations. The motives provided were very naive.
Why have this diabolical plan to start something or destroy evidents that could have been done soo much easier.
WHY WOULD BUSH LET SOOO MANY PEOPLE DIE???
You may disagree with his policies and think he’s an idiot, but no one become president unless they actually give a shit about America. I mean politics is a very tough business to be in especially to make it to president. I mean you really have to have a lot of drive, make lots of sacrafices, and put your good name and family in the spot light to be president. The fact of the matter is, people become president because they think they can make changes that are for the good of the people. Thats most people’s motivation. What on God’s green earth could have persuaded a man to go from caring soo much to have such disregard for human life. Don’t tell me oil, cuz we haven’t gotten any. Don’t tell me money, cuz the Bush family already has enough money for their grandchildrens grandchildren to drive mercedes.
So I ask you WHY???
[quote]AndrewG909 wrote:
The only question I have for you is WHY???
WHy destroy a building instead of shredding documents???
WHy throw 2 planes into a building to go to a war that was already in the process of happening???
Why throw 2 planes into a building, crash a third plane, but then use a rocket/missile to take out the pentagon???
You see without a motive any accusations are just that accusations. The motives provided were very naive.
Why have this diabolical plan to start something or destroy evidents that could have been done soo much easier.
WHY WOULD BUSH LET SOOO MANY PEOPLE DIE???
You may disagree with his policies and think he’s an idiot, but no one become president unless they actually give a shit about America. I mean politics is a very tough business to be in especially to make it to president. I mean you really have to have a lot of drive, make lots of sacrafices, and put your good name and family in the spot light to be president. The fact of the matter is, people become president because they think they can make changes that are for the good of the people. Thats most people’s motivation. What on God’s green earth could have persuaded a man to go from caring soo much to have such disregard for human life. Don’t tell me oil, cuz we haven’t gotten any. Don’t tell me money, cuz the Bush family already has enough money for their grandchildrens grandchildren to drive mercedes.
So I ask you WHY???
[/quote]
Calm down. I am not implicating Bush in any of this.
When did I say I think Bush was responsible for the collapse of WTC 7?
When and where did I say he’s an idiot in this thread?
When did I say I disagree with his policies?
For the record, I am a conservative (I’m not necessarily saying I agree with everything he’s done because he’s done several things that are way out of line with the modern conservative movement, but that’s a whole other thread/issue and has nothing to do with this discussion).
When did I say anything about oil?
When did I say anything about money?
I don’t think our own gov’t. was responsible for the attacks on the towers or the pentagon. I do, however, think it’s possible they had something to do with WTC 7. Improbable? Yes. Impossible? Not really. I don’t think asking questions is wrong. They might be a little out there sometimes, but who cares? It’s not hurting anybody if someone decides not to take everything at face value all the time.
[quote]AndrewG909 wrote:
The only question I have for you is WHY???
[/quote]
The why…
Former Bush aide: US plotted Iraq invasion long before 9/11
11 January 2004
GEORGE Bush’s former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill has revealed that the President took office in January 2001 fully intending to invade Iraq and desperate to find an excuse for pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein.
O’Neill’s claims tally with long-running investigations by the Sunday Herald which have shown how the Bush cabinet planned a pre-meditated attack on Iraq in order to “regime change” Saddam long before the neoconservative Republicans took power. http://www.sundayherald.com/39221
War not realistic option before 9/11
USA TODAY
3/24/2004
Democrats and Republicans alike told a bipartisan commission Tuesday that neither U.S. nor world opinion would have stood for such aggression before the fall of 2001. It was only after the Sept. 11 attacks that public opinion here and abroad changed enough to make an invasion politically possible http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-23-war-analysis_x.htm
[quote]
[i]"… the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big.
Such a falsehood will never enter their heads and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt and waver, and continue to accept at least one of these causes as true. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick - a fact which all the great lie-virtuosi and lying-clubs in this world know only too well and also make the most treacherous use of."[/i][/quote]
~ Adolph Hitler - Mein Kampf
FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
[quote]
“I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.”[/quote]
~ Gen Douglas MacArthur (conspiracy theorist)
FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
[/quote]
You keep posting this bullshit, and I keep showing you the FBI’s webpage for terrorists.
" Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."
To all the conspiracy theorists out there let me ask you this:
If this is true…if our government was responsible for this then why do videos like loose change exist? If this is true our government managed to silence 4000 members of the FBI & CIA…they had no issues flying planes into buildings and killing thousands of people, crippling NY and messing up our economy as well as doing countless other things…then why are the people that created loose change still alive? Why is the movie on the internet still? Why are the members of this “truth” movement still walking the streets? If this was a conspiracy there would be alot more dead people…and we wouldnt have access to all this propoganda. The NSA would have taken those videos off the internet within an hour of them being posted…and those kids would no longer be here…get real
[quote]CC wrote:
AndrewG909 wrote:
The only question I have for you is WHY???
WHy destroy a building instead of shredding documents???
WHy throw 2 planes into a building to go to a war that was already in the process of happening???
Why throw 2 planes into a building, crash a third plane, but then use a rocket/missile to take out the pentagon???
You see without a motive any accusations are just that accusations. The motives provided were very naive.
Why have this diabolical plan to start something or destroy evidents that could have been done soo much easier.
WHY WOULD BUSH LET SOOO MANY PEOPLE DIE???
You may disagree with his policies and think he’s an idiot, but no one become president unless they actually give a shit about America. I mean politics is a very tough business to be in especially to make it to president. I mean you really have to have a lot of drive, make lots of sacrafices, and put your good name and family in the spot light to be president. The fact of the matter is, people become president because they think they can make changes that are for the good of the people. Thats most people’s motivation. What on God’s green earth could have persuaded a man to go from caring soo much to have such disregard for human life. Don’t tell me oil, cuz we haven’t gotten any. Don’t tell me money, cuz the Bush family already has enough money for their grandchildrens grandchildren to drive mercedes.
So I ask you WHY???
Calm down. I am not implicating Bush in any of this.
When did I say I think Bush was responsible for the collapse of WTC 7?
When and where did I say he’s an idiot in this thread?
When did I say I disagree with his policies?
For the record, I am a conservative (I’m not necessarily saying I agree with everything he’s done because he’s done several things that are way out of line with the modern conservative movement, but that’s a whole other thread/issue and has nothing to do with this discussion).
When did I say anything about oil?
When did I say anything about money?
I don’t think our own gov’t. was responsible for the attacks on the towers or the pentagon. I do, however, think it’s possible they had something to do with WTC 7. Improbable? Yes. Impossible? Not really. I don’t think asking questions is wrong. They might be a little out there sometimes, but who cares? It’s not hurting anybody if someone decides not to take everything at face value all the time.
[/quote]
I am very calm, sorry sometimes caps tend to give off the wrong impression I only used caps to emphasize my point not to make it seem as though I was raising my voice.
Any who:
You never said that Bush was responsible however that is what the videos are saying. The videos make it seem as though Bush knew and was part of the conspiracy to take down the towers. These videos were made to bash Bush and the entire political party, thats why I stated what I did not because of something you said, but because you are thinking these videos may be true and that is what the videos imply.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
AndrewG909 wrote:
The only question I have for you is WHY???
The why…
Former Bush aide: US plotted Iraq invasion long before 9/11
11 January 2004
GEORGE Bush’s former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill has revealed that the President took office in January 2001 fully intending to invade Iraq and desperate to find an excuse for pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein.
O’Neill’s claims tally with long-running investigations by the Sunday Herald which have shown how the Bush cabinet planned a pre-meditated attack on Iraq in order to “regime change” Saddam long before the neoconservative Republicans took power. http://www.sundayherald.com/39221
War not realistic option before 9/11
USA TODAY
3/24/2004
Democrats and Republicans alike told a bipartisan commission Tuesday that neither U.S. nor world opinion would have stood for such aggression before the fall of 2001. It was only after the Sept. 11 attacks that public opinion here and abroad changed enough to make an invasion politically possible http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-23-war-analysis_x.htm
[i]"… the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big.
Such a falsehood will never enter their heads and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt and waver, and continue to accept at least one of these causes as true. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick - a fact which all the great lie-virtuosi and lying-clubs in this world know only too well and also make the most treacherous use of."[/i]
~ Adolph Hitler - Mein Kampf
FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
“I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.”
~ Gen Douglas MacArthur (conspiracy theorist)
[/quote]
The whole Osama Bin Ladin thing has been discussed in another thread and IMO is totally irrelevant. You think that because he is not wanted in correlation with 911 that this means the Gov’t doesn’t think he involved. If the Gov’t can do all this do you really think they wouldn’t be able to put his name on the list???
Anyways, no at the time Americans weren’t ready for a full scale invasion, I never said that at the time they were. What I said was that the UN had a policy very similar to the US’ policy the main difference was the span of time the gave Saddam. Now the UN would have then looked to destroy any areas where they suspected that he could be making weapons and they would have looked to remove him from power. No they probably would not have wanted to launch a full scale invasion or maybe they would have because removing the leadership would leave a struggle for power which could have led to a civil war or maybe they would have chosen to invade because they wouldn’t want Iraq’s neighbors to begin to claim the land who knows. My point is that Saddam was on thin ice and so was his regime. Without Saddam there would need to be change in the Iraqi Gov’t which could have led to a change through pressure from the UN.
The only question I would like answered is Why is there not sone single photo of the plane hitting the Pentagon (those still security camera shots on September 12th dont count. You cant see shit). Here it is 5 years after and still not one single photo of a plane hitting the Pentagon. D.C. is the nucleus of our government, yet not one camera picked up a plane hitting the Pentagon?
[quote]PGA200X wrote:
I dont think the government carried this out.
The only question I would like answered is Why is there not sone single photo of the plane hitting the Pentagon (those still security camera shots on September 12th dont count. You cant see shit). Here it is 5 years after and still not one single photo of a plane hitting the Pentagon. D.C. is the nucleus of our government, yet not one camera picked up a plane hitting the Pentagon?[/quote]
To tell the truth, that is the one I have questions about as well. I have even seen the video that claims it is showing a plane crash…and I don’t see shit. In a world where you can’t run a stoplight without it being on tape somewhere, a world where you can get across the street surveillance of the truck used for the Oklahoma bombing from an ATM machine, not one piece of video evidence shows this happening? I am just wondering why some people NEVER seem to ask questions, while some seem to believe anything. There does happen to be a middle of the road.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
To tell the truth, that is the one I have questions about as well. I have even seen the video that claims it is showing a plane crash…and I don’t see shit. In a world where you can’t run a stoplight without it being on tape somewhere, a world where you can get across the street surveillance of the truck used for the Oklahoma bombing from an ATM machine, not one piece of video evidence shows this happening? I am just wondering why some people NEVER seem to ask questions, while some seem to believe anything. There does happen to be a middle of the road.[/quote]
It doesnt make sense. Footage has to exist, its IMPOSSIBLE not to. Well they did release 4 frames of a blob in the worst resolution imaginable. Someting is being hidden thats for sure. If they release something now its too late.
I dont know what they are hiding. Since they had more than enough time to intercept it I think it could have been a stray missle that missed its target (the hojacked plane) and hit the Pentagon.
C’mon, are we supposed to believe a stray plane flew into the heart of our country’s government and was not intercepted? It takes less than one minute to get a fighter jet scrambled when a threat arises. Something got fucked up somewhere.
I was there… about 45 minutes or so… (can not remember the time… was not looking at my watch every five min). After both towers came down… we were told to evacuate the area because WTC #7 was going to come down.
The reason I write this and did not think of it until now after watching the video… Once everyone was safely out of the area the building came down…
Now… After this I remember my brother(26 years on the FDNY… and is highly trained in the Special Operations Command)…Basically he knows his shit…said( and others in this unit) and I quote " WOW… that seemed like it was taken down as if a demo crew did it." Now… my brother has been to building demos before…not saying he is an expert in it. The S.O.C.(Special Operations Command) of the FDNY have units at most demo’s of high rises in NYC… To be there for safty and to learn the about different types of collapses…there are several types to know about.
I am not saying what is in that is true… but it is making me think… I can not stop thinking about this and going over all the things I seen that day and what people were saying.