Anatomy Of A great Deception: How Building 7 Woke Me Up...

[Capstone]

Great observation. WTC 7 could be the smoking gun. If it was a controlled demolition, then it's likely the towers were as well. ...

That's probably why some of the words of the iconic news anchors, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather, were never repeated in the mainstream after the fact. They spoke honestly about what they saw on that horrible day, and if not for the efforts of early truth crusaders to preserve and analyze various news broadcasts, those words would have been swept under the carpet and largely forgotten by now.

Whether 'organic' or contrived, the blackout I spoke of has been a reality in the MSM for the better part of the past 13 years now. That's why it was such a big deal a year or two back when Richard Gage made a relatively lengthy appearance on CSPAN. Until that singular exception, prominent truth advocates (including Gage, Steven Jones, and others) had been heavily edited or banned altogether from network and cable programming. I recall a heavily edited Fox News interview with Steven Jones, for instance, in which the "collapse" video he'd sent to them in advance was replaced (without his knowledge) with a 2-D architectural drawing of Building 7.

Debwunkers have offered no explanation for this media phenomenon, even as they've maintained that there's nothing strange or suspicious about 7's speedy "collapse". Let the American People see it in primetime on network television then!

...But let's face it, most Americans just don't wanna go there. Ignorance is bliss.

Channeling my inner Mark Passio here, there's a big difference between nescience and ignor(e)ance. The former implies no culpability, while the latter could imply at least a degree of willful blindness. At some point, on some level, maintaining one's ignorance ceases to hold its formerly blissful innocence and becomes an act of willful aggression against the spirit of truth (or as some of us prefer to call it, The Spirit of God).

 

[BULLDOG]

There is a notable correlation between the crazies here that post this kind of conspiracy crap and those who are extreme right wingers. I guess the lack of ability to connect to reality isn't limited to just one subject. A crazy isn't limited to craziness on just one subject, but has a twisted inaccurate view of everything.

Check out the film. Then if you still wanna call others 'Crazies', that's cool. But try watching it with an open mind first.

Sorry, I only allot so much time to listening to crazies, and you have pretty much used that up. I'm not going to waste an hour and a half on that video unless it has titties and a couple of car crashes.

There is a notable correlation between the crazies here that post this kind of conspiracy crap and those who are extreme right wingers. I guess the lack of ability to connect to reality isn't limited to just one subject. A crazy isn't limited to craziness on just one subject, but has a twisted inaccurate view of everything.

Having spent too much time here I can say that CT loons tend to span the political spectrum. Indeed a psych study found that those who subscribe to 1 CT tend to accept many or even most as factual. The study even employed a non-existent (placebo) CT of which many of the subjects claimed to have "knowledge" and believe. This 9/11 thing has a particularly pernicious twist to it. It is hate driven as many "Truthers" start with their bottom line ("the Joooz did it!") and then suspend their disbelief mechanism and willfully lie rather than face the facts about themselves and their agenda as they attempt to justify their preconceived (and unshakeable) conclusion.

Bottom line,
"It's true because all the other crazies say it's true, and they believed me when I came up with crazy crap"

funny how you call HIM crazy when you wont even look at the evidence.i would post two short videos that are much shorter than the one posted in the OP that have irrefutable facts that they were brought down by controlled demolition but i know how your ilk act though so i wont bother.you all just go into insulting mode refusing to watch them so you need to look in the mirror when treferring to someone as crazy the fact you wont even look at the evidence.

Sorry buddy, but if this was years ago before there had already been thousands of videos showing the exact same thing, saying the exact same thing, and making the exact same silly accusations, I would have probably watched your long video. I'll even make a deal with you. If you can promise me there is something substantial or new that hasn't already been said over and over by other truthers, I'll watch your video. If there is nothing substantially new You will publicly apologize for posting silly crap and quit posting here for a year. If there is, then I will. Deal?

the only one posting silly crap here is you,the fact that one of USMBs resident trolls agent SAYIT liked your post,i would be worried.Lol.that guy is such a dumbfuck its pathetic.

you are just proving that you are afraid of the truth refusing to watch it.just like that dumbfuck SAYIT troll,you have the warped logic that just because the government says its true,then that makes it the automatic truth.

better get off that crack you been smoking that agent sayit is giving you.

you would be laughed out of debating ahll with your warped logic that because the governments debunked version of events says it true,then it automatically is instead of listening to these high credible experts in their fields along with witness testimonys.you lose loser.

Patriots Question 9 11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9 11 Commission Report

Does that mean you are willing to take the deal? I won't watch your video unless you do, because I've already heard all that crap many times before. Hearing it one more time won't make it any more credible. That is, unless you are willing to make that deal and promise there is something in that video other than the same so called evidence that truthers have been whining about for years.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Check out the film. Then if you still wanna call others 'Crazies', that's cool. But try watching it with an open mind first.

Sorry, I only allot so much time to listening to crazies, and you have pretty much used that up. I'm not going to waste an hour and a half on that video unless it has titties and a couple of car crashes.

Having spent too much time here I can say that CT loons tend to span the political spectrum. Indeed a psych study found that those who subscribe to 1 CT tend to accept many or even most as factual. The study even employed a non-existent (placebo) CT of which many of the subjects claimed to have "knowledge" and believe. This 9/11 thing has a particularly pernicious twist to it. It is hate driven as many "Truthers" start with their bottom line ("the Joooz did it!") and then suspend their disbelief mechanism and willfully lie rather than face the facts about themselves and their agenda as they attempt to justify their preconceived (and unshakeable) conclusion.

Bottom line,
"It's true because all the other crazies say it's true, and they believed me when I came up with crazy crap"

funny how you call HIM crazy when you wont even look at the evidence.i would post two short videos that are much shorter than the one posted in the OP that have irrefutable facts that they were brought down by controlled demolition but i know how your ilk act though so i wont bother.you all just go into insulting mode refusing to watch them so you need to look in the mirror when treferring to someone as crazy the fact you wont even look at the evidence.

Sorry buddy, but if this was years ago before there had already been thousands of videos showing the exact same thing, saying the exact same thing, and making the exact same silly accusations, I would have probably watched your long video. I'll even make a deal with you. If you can promise me there is something substantial or new that hasn't already been said over and over by other truthers, I'll watch your video. If there is nothing substantially new You will publicly apologize for posting silly crap and quit posting here for a year. If there is, then I will. Deal?

the only one posting silly crap here is you,the fact that one of USMBs resident trolls agent SAYIT liked your post,i would be worried.Lol.that guy is such a dumbfuck its pathetic.

you are just proving that you are afraid of the truth refusing to watch it.just like that dumbfuck SAYIT troll,you have the warped logic that just because the government says its true,then that makes it the automatic truth.

better get off that crack you been smoking that agent sayit is giving you.

you would be laughed out of debating ahll with your warped logic that because the governments debunked version of events says it true,then it automatically is instead of listening to these high credible experts in their fields along with witness testimonys.you lose loser.

Patriots Question 9 11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9 11 Commission Report

Does that mean you are willing to take the deal? I won't watch your video unless you do, because I've already heard all that crap many times before. Hearing it one more time won't make it any more credible. That is, unless you are willing to make that deal and promise there is something in that video other than the same so called evidence that truthers have been whining about for years.

yet you have never produced any so called evidence the fires caused the buildings to collapse and have failed miserably to debunk the facts explosives brought them down. as always.this is all you have when you are cornered by videos with facts.

im done with you,its like talking to a brick wall.have fun talking to yourself.

 

[SAYIT]

Until that singular exception, prominent truth advocates (including Gage, Steven Jones, and others) had been heavily edited or banned altogether from network and cable programming.

Interesting. Could you provide evidence of either being banned by network and cable?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Looks like you came to fart again dawgshit right after the other troll just did.

 

[SAYIT]

Does that mean you are willing to take the deal? I won't watch your video unless you do, because I've already heard all that crap many times before. Hearing it one more time won't make it any more credible. That is, unless you are willing to make that deal and promise there is something in that video other than the same so called evidence that truthers have been whining about for years.

yet you have never produced any so called evidence the fires caused the buildings to collapse and have failed miserably to debunk the facts explosives brought them down. as always.this is all you have when you are cornered by videos with facts.
im done with you,its like talking to a brick wall.have fun talking to yourself.

In fact, the NIST study provided expert evidence of fire as the catalyst while you have provided none of explosives (of which NIST found none). Evidently you are aware there is nothing new in your latest 9/11 CD DVD as proven by your obvious unwillingness to take Bulldog's challenge.

 

[SAYIT]

Until that singular exception, prominent truth advocates (including Gage, Steven Jones, and others) had been heavily edited or banned altogether from network and cable programming.

Interesting. Could you provide evidence of either being banned by network and cable?

Looks like you came to fart again dawgshit right after the other troll just did.

So that's your evidence? Hopefully Cappy will do better.

 

[Steven_R]

I thought one of the more interesting parts of the film was when it showed numerous media outlets reporting WTC 7 collapsing while it was still clearly standing. Spooky stuff.

It's not spooky. It's sloppy reporting plus a highly chaotic situation plus the overwhelming desire to scoop the competition. It's not some conspiracy that the media is in on and it happens all the time. There are whole pages on the problem such as:

CNN Boston Marathon Bombing Mistake How the Network Got It Wrong - Hollywood Reporter
ABC News Made 3 Big Reporting Errors In The Past Month - Business Insider
Getting it wrong Media rushes to report on Supreme Court s health care decision - CBS News


Go back as long as we've had newspapers and we'll find the same issues. Did you know that despite hitting an iceberg, the Titanic was still on the way to NYC according to initial reports printed in the London Daily Mail? Guess they got it wrong after all.

Daily Mail archives reveal how Britain learned of the Titanic disaster Daily Mail Online

And lest we forget, Dewey Beats Truman.

I don't know, seemed way too coordinated. I mean some even reported it collapsed, while it was obviously still standing. But hey, that's your take. I can respect it.

If the media was in on the whole thing, don't you think someone would have gotten the memo to not announce the collapse of the building until AFTER it happened?

The news screwed up. It happens. "Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity" kind of a deal.

Not sure if they were in on it. It could be more a case of them being manipulated.

Manipulated by whom exactly? If someone is going to go through all that trouble to coordinate the whole thing, don't you think making sure the media stuck to the timeline of reporting?

Or it's just the newspeople fucked up because it was highly chaotic and getting a story right isn't as important as scooping the competition these days?

 

[peach174]

How do we know- they might have set it to be detonated by explosives if the World Trade Center had ever been hit by jihadists or any one else who is our enemies.?

There had been an explosion done by them prior to the planes hitting them.

They could have had it set up to be demolished in order to not have all of the other buildings surrounding them destroyed.

Complete 911 Timeline 1993 Bombing of the World Trade Center
(March 29, 1993): Former Port Authority Director Recommends that New York Agencies Prepare for a Plane Hitting the WTC

Then again if you watch the video and then read this - it seems that it might have been set up all along under Clinton and Bush.
Why did the FBI back off from the Sheikh?

Mid-November 1990: CIA Allegedy Blocks FBI Investigation of ‘Blind Sheikh’ in Kahane Assassination[/paste:font]

The FBI is apparently under pressure to back off from investigating Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman. One week after the murder of Zionist rabbi Meir Kahane, a long-time FBI counterterrorism expert meets with one of his top undercover operatives. According to the FBI agent, the undercover operative asks, “Why aren’t we going after the Sheikh [Abdul-Rahman]?” The FBI agent replies, “It’s hands-off.” He further explains, “It was no accident that the Sheikh got a visa and that he’s still in the country. He’s here under the banner of national security, the State Department, the NSA, and the CIA.” The agent concludes that Abdul-Rahman is untouchable. Noting how the government is already firmly suggesting that El Sayyid Nosair was the only one involved in Kahane’s murder, he says, “I haven’t seen the lone-gunman theory advocated [so forcefully] since John F. Kennedy.” [November 5, 1990 and After).

 

[SAYIT]

How do we know- they might have set it to be detonated by explosives if the World Trade Center had ever been hit by jihadists or any one else who is our enemies...

Wait ... so you are suggesting the Towers and WTC 7 were rigged years In advance just in case 19 Jihadis decided to slam large passenger jets into them? You're kidding, right?

They could have had it set up to be demolished in order to not have all of the other buildings surrounding them destroyed.

How could "they" know how those 100+ story Towers would fall and how did those "silent explosives" survive the impacts and the ensuing hour or more of chaotic and unpredictable fires?

C'mon, Peach ... I know you're smarter than that silliness..

 

[Politico]

I'll have to take your word for that i guess. But check out the film. Try watching with an open mind. Enjoy.

Try watching on your meds.

You forgot the obligatory 'Tinfoil Hat' insult. Come on, get it all out of your system. Then try to watch the film with an open mind. Let us know what you think.

What does tin foil have to do with your meds? Are you wrapping yourself in it or something?

Uh yeah, we've heard that lame insult many many times. You got any new material? You done? Ok, now check out the film. I think you'll be very surprised how interesting it is.

yeah thats surprising the Bush dupe left out the typical tin foil hat comment.the truth hurts so instead of looking at the evidence,like clockwork,they go into insult mode.

I am a rightwinger? Yeah you need your meds too.

 

[Capstone]

Manipulated by whom exactly? If someone is going to go through all that trouble to coordinate the whole thing, don't you think making sure the media stuck to the timeline of reporting?...

In covert operations the doctrine of plausible deniability entails that key figures be kept in the dark, particularly those that can later be discounted or discredited as having mispoken or misacted amid 'the fog of war', which is exactly how the 'real-time' commentaries of Jennings, Rather, and others have been explained away by OCT apologists.

...Or it's just the newspeople fucked up because it was highly chaotic and getting a story right isn't as important as scooping the competition these days?

The premature report of Building 7's "collapse" indirectly corroborates the nature of the apparent foreknowledge expressed in the testimonies of many firefighters (in that they too were overwhelmingly based on word-of-mouth instruction instead of direct observation). With the Solomon Bros. Building still standing in the background as the reporters spoke of its "collapse" in the past tense, it's difficult to argue that the report could have been based on anything other than hearsay.

As I said in one of my previous posts, though, the MSM's collective MO in the days, weeks, months, and years after the fact has been far more telling of top-down manipulation in order to prop-up and promote the patently ridiculous 'official narrative' before the eyes of millions of hypnotized Americans.

Jeffrey Berwick wrote about Richard Gage's 40-minute interview on C-SPAN back in August of 2014 (full article here).

An excerpt:

"[. . .]C-SPAN is operated by the National Cable Satellite Corporation, the board of directors of which consists primarily of representatives of the largest cable companies. While you can’t call it “mainstream media” per se, it is available in 100 million households in the US and therefore this is significant.

For 40 minutes the truth about 9/11 was represented as not being crazy… instead, it was the exact opposite. It was positioned as highly credible and six of the seven callers thanked both C-SPAN and Richard Gage for finally bringing countless issues with 9/11 forward to the large segment of the US populace, which still thinks something isn’t real unless it is on their television programming.

This is the first time 9/11 has been presented in this way on a US-based network with a significant reach.[...]"

Bold emphasis mine.

In light of other current events on the domestic front, I think it's likely that the "monumental shift" Berwick wrote about elsewhere in that linked article has been intentionally initiated to help foment dissent and ratchet up tensions ahead of the Jade Helm exercises. The timing's just a little too convenient, in my very humble opinion.

 

[SAYIT]

Manipulated by whom exactly? If someone is going to go through all that trouble to coordinate the whole thing, don't you think making sure the media stuck to the timeline of reporting?...

In covert operations the doctrine of plausible deniability entails that key figures be kept in the dark, particularly those that can later be discounted or discredited as having mispoken or misacted amid 'the fog of war', which is exactly how the 'real-time' commentaries of Jennings, Rather, and others have been explained away by OCT apologists.

...Or it's just the newspeople fucked up because it was highly chaotic and getting a story right isn't as important as scooping the competition these days?

The premature report of Building 7's "collapse" indirectly corroborates the nature of the apparent foreknowledge expressed in the testimonies of many firefighters (in that they too were overwhelmingly based on word-of-mouth instruction instead of direct observation). With the Solomon Bros. Building still standing in the background as the reporters spoke of its "collapse" in the past tense, it's difficult to argue that the report could have been based on anything other than hearsay.

As I said in one of my previous posts, though, the MSM's collective MO in the days, weeks, months, and years after the fact has been far more telling of top-down manipulation in order to prop-up and promote the patently ridiculous 'official narrative' before the eyes of millions of hypnotized Americans.

Jeffrey Berwick wrote about Richard Gage's 40-minute interview on C-SPAN back in August of 2014 (full article here).

An excerpt:

"[. . .]C-SPAN is operated by the National Cable Satellite Corporation, the board of directors of which consists primarily of representatives of the largest cable companies. While you can’t call it “mainstream media” per se, it is available in 100 million households in the US and therefore this is significant.

For 40 minutes the truth about 9/11 was represented as not being crazy… instead, it was the exact opposite. It was positioned as highly credible and six of the seven callers thanked both C-SPAN and Richard Gage for finally bringing countless issues with 9/11 forward to the large segment of the US populace, which still thinks something isn’t real unless it is on their television programming.

This is the first time 9/11 has been presented in this way on a US-based network with a significant reach.[...]"

Bold emphasis mine.

In light of other current events on the domestic front, I think it's likely that the "monumental shift" Berwick wrote about elsewhere in that linked article has been intentionally initiated to help foment dissent and ratchet up tensions ahead of the Jade Helm exercises. The timing's just a little too convenient, in my very humble opinion.

"In covert operations the doctrine of plausible deniability entails that key figures be kept in the dark..."

"The premature report of Building 7's "collapse" indirectly corroborates the nature of the apparent foreknowledge expressed in the testimonies of many firefighters..."

"top-down manipulation in order to prop-up and promote the patently ridiculous 'official narrative' before the eyes of millions of hypnotized Americans..."

"I think it's likely that the "monumental shift" Berwick wrote about elsewhere in that linked article has been intentionally initiated to help foment dissent and ratchet up tensions ahead of the Jade Helm exercises. The timing's just a little too convenient, in my very humble opinion."


It is amusing to witness the methodology employed by the typical CT to cobble together his particular theories (notice how one connects to the next) and then rationalize away his particular lunacy.

 

[paulitician]

Fascinating Documentary by David Hooper. Check it out. Let me know what you think.

Much like the JFK asisination, once you research 9/11 you have to conclude that the official story is BS. The 9/11 report like the Warren Commission report, is full of glaring omissions. It is all very disturbing.

Rushed botched jobs for sure. Thanks.

 

[paulitician]

I thought one of the more interesting parts of the film was when it showed numerous media outlets reporting WTC 7 collapsing while it was still clearly standing. Spooky stuff.

It's not spooky. It's sloppy reporting plus a highly chaotic situation plus the overwhelming desire to scoop the competition. It's not some conspiracy that the media is in on and it happens all the time. There are whole pages on the problem such as:

CNN Boston Marathon Bombing Mistake How the Network Got It Wrong - Hollywood Reporter
ABC News Made 3 Big Reporting Errors In The Past Month - Business Insider
Getting it wrong Media rushes to report on Supreme Court s health care decision - CBS News


Go back as long as we've had newspapers and we'll find the same issues. Did you know that despite hitting an iceberg, the Titanic was still on the way to NYC according to initial reports printed in the London Daily Mail? Guess they got it wrong after all.

Daily Mail archives reveal how Britain learned of the Titanic disaster Daily Mail Online

And lest we forget, Dewey Beats Truman.

I don't know, seemed way too coordinated. I mean some even reported it collapsed, while it was obviously still standing. But hey, that's your take. I can respect it.

If the media was in on the whole thing, don't you think someone would have gotten the memo to not announce the collapse of the building until AFTER it happened?

The news screwed up. It happens. "Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity" kind of a deal.

Not sure if they were in on it. It could be more a case of them being manipulated.

Manipulated by whom exactly? If someone is going to go through all that trouble to coordinate the whole thing, don't you think making sure the media stuck to the timeline of reporting?

Or it's just the newspeople fucked up because it was highly chaotic and getting a story right isn't as important as scooping the competition these days?

That's one way to look it.

 

[gipper]

Manipulated by whom exactly? If someone is going to go through all that trouble to coordinate the whole thing, don't you think making sure the media stuck to the timeline of reporting?...

In covert operations the doctrine of plausible deniability entails that key figures be kept in the dark, particularly those that can later be discounted or discredited as having mispoken or misacted amid 'the fog of war', which is exactly how the 'real-time' commentaries of Jennings, Rather, and others have been explained away by OCT apologists.

...Or it's just the newspeople fucked up because it was highly chaotic and getting a story right isn't as important as scooping the competition these days?

The premature report of Building 7's "collapse" indirectly corroborates the nature of the apparent foreknowledge expressed in the testimonies of many firefighters (in that they too were overwhelmingly based on word-of-mouth instruction instead of direct observation). With the Solomon Bros. Building still standing in the background as the reporters spoke of its "collapse" in the past tense, it's difficult to argue that the report could have been based on anything other than hearsay.

As I said in one of my previous posts, though, the MSM's collective MO in the days, weeks, months, and years after the fact has been far more telling of top-down manipulation in order to prop-up and promote the patently ridiculous 'official narrative' before the eyes of millions of hypnotized Americans.

Jeffrey Berwick wrote about Richard Gage's 40-minute interview on C-SPAN back in August of 2014 (full article here).

An excerpt:

"[. . .]C-SPAN is operated by the National Cable Satellite Corporation, the board of directors of which consists primarily of representatives of the largest cable companies. While you can’t call it “mainstream media” per se, it is available in 100 million households in the US and therefore this is significant.

For 40 minutes the truth about 9/11 was represented as not being crazy… instead, it was the exact opposite. It was positioned as highly credible and six of the seven callers thanked both C-SPAN and Richard Gage for finally bringing countless issues with 9/11 forward to the large segment of the US populace, which still thinks something isn’t real unless it is on their television programming.

This is the first time 9/11 has been presented in this way on a US-based network with a significant reach.[...]"

Bold emphasis mine.

In light of other current events on the domestic front, I think it's likely that the "monumental shift" Berwick wrote about elsewhere in that linked article has been intentionally initiated to help foment dissent and ratchet up tensions ahead of the Jade Helm exercises. The timing's just a little too convenient, in my very humble opinion.

Great post.

Thanks for posting Berwick's article and Gage's interview on C-Span. Most damning.

The controlled demolition of WTC 7 and the documented evidence of molten steel, would seem to indicate that the government's story is total BS...of course there are numerous other inconsistencies.

For one to believe the government's story, one has to be willfully blind or ignorant.

 

[paulitician]

Manipulated by whom exactly? If someone is going to go through all that trouble to coordinate the whole thing, don't you think making sure the media stuck to the timeline of reporting?...

In covert operations the doctrine of plausible deniability entails that key figures be kept in the dark, particularly those that can later be discounted or discredited as having mispoken or misacted amid 'the fog of war', which is exactly how the 'real-time' commentaries of Jennings, Rather, and others have been explained away by OCT apologists.

...Or it's just the newspeople fucked up because it was highly chaotic and getting a story right isn't as important as scooping the competition these days?

The premature report of Building 7's "collapse" indirectly corroborates the nature of the apparent foreknowledge expressed in the testimonies of many firefighters (in that they too were overwhelmingly based on word-of-mouth instruction instead of direct observation). With the Solomon Bros. Building still standing in the background as the reporters spoke of its "collapse" in the past tense, it's difficult to argue that the report could have been based on anything other than hearsay.

As I said in one of my previous posts, though, the MSM's collective MO in the days, weeks, months, and years after the fact has been far more telling of top-down manipulation in order to prop-up and promote the patently ridiculous 'official narrative' before the eyes of millions of hypnotized Americans.

Jeffrey Berwick wrote about Richard Gage's 40-minute interview on C-SPAN back in August of 2014 (full article here).

An excerpt:

"[. . .]C-SPAN is operated by the National Cable Satellite Corporation, the board of directors of which consists primarily of representatives of the largest cable companies. While you can’t call it “mainstream media” per se, it is available in 100 million households in the US and therefore this is significant.

For 40 minutes the truth about 9/11 was represented as not being crazy… instead, it was the exact opposite. It was positioned as highly credible and six of the seven callers thanked both C-SPAN and Richard Gage for finally bringing countless issues with 9/11 forward to the large segment of the US populace, which still thinks something isn’t real unless it is on their television programming.

This is the first time 9/11 has been presented in this way on a US-based network with a significant reach.[...]"

Bold emphasis mine.

In light of other current events on the domestic front, I think it's likely that the "monumental shift" Berwick wrote about elsewhere in that linked article has been intentionally initiated to help foment dissent and ratchet up tensions ahead of the Jade Helm exercises. The timing's just a little too convenient, in my very humble opinion.

Great post.

Thanks for posting Berwick's article and Gage's interview on C-Span. Most damning.

The controlled demolition of WTC 7 and the documented evidence of molten steel, would seem to indicate that the government's story is total BS...of course there are numerous other inconsistencies.

For one to believe the government's story, one has to be willfully blind or ignorant.

Have to agree, the molten steel is pretty damning. Something else was at play. Especially with WTC 7. And the odds of three buildings collapsing perfectly symmetrically into their own footprints on the same day, are virtually nil. It just doesn't happen. Building collapses don't look like that. They only look like that in cases of controlled demolition.

 

[Steven_R]

You're thinking buildings are some great Jenga set. In order for a building to fall in any direction other than straight down requires an outside force to push it to the side. There was no force, only gravity pulling downward. It's covered in any first year Physics class.

 

[peach174]

How do we know- they might have set it to be detonated by explosives if the World Trade Center had ever been hit by jihadists or any one else who is our enemies...

Wait ... so you are suggesting the Towers and WTC 7 were rigged years In advance just in case 19 Jihadis decided to slam large passenger jets into them? You're kidding, right?

They could have had it set up to be demolished in order to not have all of the other buildings surrounding them destroyed.

How could "they" know how those 100+ story Towers would fall and how did those "silent explosives" survive the impacts and the ensuing hour or more of chaotic and unpredictable fires?

C'mon, Peach ... I know you're smarter than that silliness..

You did not watch the video or the link I put up did you?

 

[SAYIT]

...Most damning. The controlled demolition of WTC 7 and the documented evidence of molten steel, would seem to indicate that the government's story is total BS...

Except there is no evidence of molten steel or a controlled demo but why let a silly thing like the truth interfere with a juicy conspiracy theory, eh?