• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

WTC Demolition Conspiracy

Was the WTC disaster an inside job?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 10 66.7%

  • Total voters
    15
A lot depends on the timeline here: the way he tells it the fire chief was calling him wihle the operation was still going on. He says "They made the decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse", which gives the impression this was quite soon before the collapse, and I suspect after the fire crews had actually withdrawn.
He doesn't specifically claim he was telling the chief what to do, nor that the chief had asked him for a decision or an opinion. There are a few mumbled words I can't make out.
No I don't think he was giving an order to demolish the building. I suspect him of portraying himself in a good light as a smokescreen. When I posed the rhetorical question as to how the "pull it" comment could be viewed in light of the fact that the fire fighters seemed to have left WTC7 some time before his conversation with the fire chief I was not intending to reinforce the"pull it" - meant - "demolish it" theory.
 
This is the "smoking gun" section of the BBC news output for 9/11.

why is the BBC report considered worthy of excited dissemination whilst the CNN report is not?

I specifically mentioned the broadcaster responsible in my earlier post, and also offered their own explanation of the confusing reports. My post previous to that had a link which included the CNN feed so, excited dissemination aside, the door's wide open for other people to research for themselves.
 
Twin_Star said:
I specifically mentioned the broadcaster responsible in my earlier post, and also offered their own explanation of the confusing reports. My post previous to that had a link which included the CNN feed so, excited dissemination aside, the door's wide open for other people to research for themselves.

I wasn't referring to you specifically. It's just that this piece of footage is often brought up and usually by people who seem altogether oblivious to the CNN report. The reality is that as smoking guns go this one's a little, well, smoke-free.
 
As there are 74 pages to this thread so far, I haven't read every post so don't know if this has been mentioned before. I read an article about 5 years ago that claimed a nuclear device had caused the Twin Towers to collapse the way they did. Apparently each of the towers had them installed during construction as a means to demolish the buildings at a later date without causing damage to the surrounding buildings.

It's long, very long, and I've found an improved version of it now which has added images and further information - one thing that stuck with me was the challenge in the original article to go and find an old dictionary (printed before 2001) to look up the definition of "Ground zero", so I did. There it was, plain as day, just one definition: "The point on the ground immediately below or above the point of detonation of an atomic or thermonuclear bomb"

The article also explains the different ways an atomic reaction occurs depending whether it's detonated above ground, below ground, or under water.

I don't know about the terrorists or whatever, but the explanation of this makes way more sense than the "jet fuel made it happen" gumph

http://www.911thology.com/nexus1.html
 
The following is an excerpt from the website linked above:

To begin with I would like to quote a statement concerning a hero from 9/11 – Detective John Walcott, a “Ground Zero” responder, who spent a considerable amount of time at the WTC site cleaning rubble from of the World Trade Center. He had spent enough time there to develop a very interesting disease: acute myelogenous leukemia in its terminal form. Just a mere two paragraphs taken out of a frightening article entitled “Death by Dust”[1] managed to contain and reveal practically all the “unexplainable” things many had questions about concerning “Ground Zero”. The excerpts below will provide the reader with some key basic points which will allow you to better understand the main point of this article – that of dust and radiation:

“…Because Walcott was a detective, he ended up spending his five-month stint not just at Ground Zero, but also at Fresh Kills. As much as he choked on the Lower Manhattan air, he dreaded the Staten Island landfill. Walcott knew everything in the towers had fallen - desks, lights, and computers. But apart from the occasional steel beam, the detritus that he sifted through there consisted of tiny grains of dust - no furniture pieces, no light fixtures, not even a computer mouse.

At times, the detectives would take shelter in wooden sheds, in an attempt to get away from what Walcott likes to call "all that freaking bad air." One day, he was sitting in the shed with his colleagues, eating candy bars and drinking sodas, when some FBI agents entered. They were dressed in full haz-mat suits, complete with head masks, which they had sealed shut with duct tape to ward off the fumes. As Walcott took in the scene, contrasting the well-protected FBI agents with the New York cops wearing respirator masks, one thought entered his mind: What is wrong with this picture?[2]...”

Yes, Mr. Walcott, unfortunately something was wrong. Something was very badly wrong with that picture…

If you were to only open up a contemporary dictionary and look up the actual meaning of this peculiar term, you wouldn’t need to ask that question; you would immediately understand what was wrong with “Ground Zero”:

Above – all possible meanings of “ground zero” as defined by The New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition 1999, ISBN 1-888777796), page 559.

It should be noted that Mr. John Walcott eventually managed to survive, unlike many of his colleagues who used to work at “Ground Zero” and who were not as lucky as him. On December 17, 2007, it was briefly mentioned in an Internet news article[3] that John Walcott had at last undergone a truly advanced (and extremely painful) operation known as a bone marrow transplantation. From now on, he could continue to live, but only on special immuno-depressant drugs which prevent transplant rejection; and without ever leaving his home due to the fact his entire immune system no longer exists and any kind of infection can easily prove fatal.

For anyone who doesn’t know what “marrow transplantation” is, I am obliged to explain. A marrow transplantation is required in patients who have incurred heavy doses of either penetrating or residual ionizing radiation (or both) and whose own bone marrow (which is responsible for blood regeneration) has been completely killed off by heavy doses of radiation.

This is a particularly unique property of radiation – it strikes bone marrow cells more heavily than it does other cells in the human body. That is why the majority of victims of radiation suffer from leukemia. And, the heavier the dose of radiation, the more bone marrow is killed off, thus, the worse the case of leukemia the patient suffers from. John Walcott apparently suffered from the most severe possible condition – before obtaining his bone marrow transplantation, he was living exclusively on donors’ blood because his own blood was not regenerating at all.

In addition to killing off or severely damaging bone marrow, ionizing radiation, especially when someone inhales or ingests radioactive dust or radioactive vapor, causes various kinds of cancers that can affect virtually any part of the human body and even several parts all at once.

It is, however, not too difficult for dishonest doctors and health officials to provide plausible “explanations” as to what may have caused these cancers. They can just claim it was due to “asbestos”, “toxic fumes”, “toxic dust particles”, etc. However, when it comes to bone marrow damage, these deceivers are caught right in their tracks because bone marrow damage can only be caused by ionizing radiation.

That is precisely why the FBI agents showed up in full “haz-mat” suits and even had their head masks sealed shut with duct tape to “ward off fumes” while visiting “Ground Zero”. They didn’t want to suffer from leukemia nor from any other cancer, so they went as far as to seal their head masks shut with duct tape, not just to “ward off the fumes”, as John Walcott had believed, but because they needed to ward off airborne radioactive dust, and more specifically, radioactive vapor, which must not be inhaled or ingested at all costs.

/End quote
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, but I'm 100% sure that I began that post with the words "the following is an excerpt from the website linked above"

HTH
Yes, but you, having posted it and highlighted it, endorse the website's credibility; that it's statements are correct?
 
My apologies, I did not take the time to fact check every single sentence in the quoted section. I'm not a doctor, nor have I had any dealings with bone marrow failure or cancers of any kind, nuclear related or otherwise.

I was more interested in the Ground Zero part, along with the possibility/probability of the towers having been brought down by an atomic detonation. I did however pick up a pre-2001 dictionary and see the original definition of "ground zero" with my own eyes, and coupled with everything else I'd read about the behaviour of nuclear detonations above and below ground came to my own conclusions from that.

Jet fuel could not possibly have cause two entire towers to turn into dust, and neither could the impact of a plane. I'm not qualified to comment about the bone marrow as I haven't done any research into that part.
 
My apologies, I did not take the time to fact check every single sentence in the quoted section. I'm not a doctor, nor have I had any dealings with bone marrow failure or cancers of any kind, nuclear related or otherwise
No need to apologise. I simply asked a question. Since the idea quoted in my initial response is so wrong I'd suggest the entire website is loaded with errors and an unsustainable source of evidence for the opinions presented. I know you're new here, but don't feel intimidated. I do this from time to time - it's a habit, critical thinking. I wish I could stop. It would make life so much easier to explain. I'm also in my cans tonight. Tomorrow I'll be much more maliable. Forgive me. It isn't personal. I'm friendly. I'm a friend.

2hud3a.jpg
 
Jet fuel could not possibly have cause two entire towers to turn into dust, and neither could the impact of a plane.
Are you qualified to make that categorical assertion?
Slap SLAP! STOP IT, skinneth Paltrow!!

Sorry, AC. Honestly now. I'm not convinced that there was a conspiracy outside the muslamic plot. No evidence thus far presented has had any impact on my incredulity. I'm trying t keep it light-hearted, so help me, ullah.

I'm open to the idea, but ... it's just that Merkan pollies aren't smart enough.

That said, the dropping of WT7 does have me somewhat mystified. Has that topple been discussed on the thread yet?
 
That said, the dropping of WT7 does have me somewhat mystified. Has that topple been discussed on the thread yet?

It's been cited many times during this thread's ever-lengthening tenure ...
 
Oh yeah, now I remember. WT7's infrastructure was weakened by the collapse of WT1 and 2, and this precipitated the collapse of WT7. Right?
But is that reeeally what caused it? (I'm holding back and only being a bit mocky.)

It was all recorded on the TV. Almost all.
 
The beeb said it had fallen down half an hour before it did.

Ive always believed they collapsed it themselves, because they really hate to be wrong.
 
World Trade Centre 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
There's a shitload of these buildings that were previously designated WT# whatever.

WT7 was one of the buildings comprising the conglomerate real estate known as "The World Trade Centre" because, yknow, Manhatten and Merkans and yadayadayada.

WT7 was in the immediate vicinity of the Twin Towers, and when they fell they undercut the infrastructure of the next tallest building in their path of destruction, which was designated World Trade Building 7. It fell down a few hours after the tall ones. It wasn't focused on much, so most people missed its collapse amid the hubbub of WT 1 and 2 getting all the gory glory. It was a third collapse.
 
Last edited:
The Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine New York station was destroyed in the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center, seriously disrupting United States intelligence operations while bringing the war on terrorism dangerously close to home for America's spy agency, government officials say.

The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center, one of the smaller office towers destroyed in the aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers that morning. All of the agency's employees at the site were safely evacuated soon after the hijacked planes hit the twin towers, the officials said.

The intelligence agency's employees were able to watch from their office windows while the twin towers burned just before they evacuated their own building.

Immediately after the attack, the C.I.A. dispatched a special team to scour the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports that had been stored in the New York station, either on paper or in computers, officials said. It could not be learned whether the agency was successful in retrieving its classified records from the wreckage.

A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment.


Continued (2001 article):
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/04/...y-secret-cia-site-new-york-was-destroyed.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top