I believe GSC has this same POV.
1 Like
Lol
What’s he say? I refuse to use that Chinese spyware
SC- explain how the BBC ran a story about building 7 falling 20 minutes before it fell.
In fact- just explain how a building blocks away could have been impacted that severely as to have failed but there were buildings in between it that were unscathed and still standing today.
Oh- PS…. There was gold bullion in the basement. I’m sure that had no impact.
1 Like
That’s the same comment Ventura made in that interview. I found this interview intriguing. I have no answers.
1 Like
This is just so dumb.
What is your theory? That there was a conspiracy to take down the twin towers, and the conspiracists had so generously provided talking points to all the news stations in advance?
So all these broadcasters are IN on the conspiracy now? Think about how laughable that is.
There would be no reason at all to feed information to news sites early. It doesn’t help the conspiracy. If you want to direct a narrative, you can send talking points over after the fact, just as would happen every day in the news business.
It’s just dumb dumb dumb.
I mean, that’s part for his intellect though. Absolutely nothing to see here. The guy is an absolute conspiracy nut job whom can’t distinguish reality from fiction.
I believe the Bush Administration knew this attack was incoming and simply allowed it to happen. Why is that far fetched? We did the same this with Pearl Harbor.
Well why would they do that!!!??
Because look at what is enabled them to achieve after.
Patriot Act
2 ridiculous wars
Expansion of Executive Powers
Where did I ever say this?
Not sure I agree with your point but it’s not relevant anyway.
Why would the media report that the building fell 20 minutes before it fell?
Um…you never appeared to have a problem with the expansion of executive powers under Trump. Interesting.
If you believed that, then why didn’t you call out Trump when he brought in all the Bush people? More than 3 dozen people were Bush alumns in Trump’s admin.
What powers specifically?
No, no, no. You’re backing away from your BBC claim.
I am asking you if you think the conspirators generously provided the BBC with talking points BEFORE their conspiracy was executed, thereby blowing the conspiracy.
Why would they do that? What would it gain them by getting that report out there 20 minutes early when they would get the same results by simply allowing the news media to do their jobs and report what was happening?
THAT is what’s farfetched. Don’t back away from the news broadcast after using it as evidence. Try to use critical thinking and bear your logic out for once.
The whole thing is a game of telephone. Someone reports the building is in danger of collapsing first, someone else says a building collapsed, BBC misconstrues and reports the wrong thing. It was a mistake.
That’s my theory. What’s yours?
Because sometimes plans don’t go according to plan (no pun intended). Someone obviously fucked up when they messaged that to the BBC and the BBC was either complicit OR incompetent because you can still see the building in the background.
My theory is above. Someone fucked up. Happens all the time when people plan shit. This is no different.
But you’ve avoided my question.
Why would building 7 come down and not the buildings in between?
Look at the map above. You’re telling me that Wtc 5 and 6 withstood the damage and it skipped them and took down Wtc 7?
No critical damage to the Post office or Verizon next to Wtc 7 either huh?
Amazing how that happened. What’s your theory?
1 Like
No, you haven’t answered the question yet though. Granted, you think some fucked up and released early. I get that part.
BUT WHY RELEASE TALKING POINTS AT ALL?
You haven’t explained why the conspirators would bother prepping a news story for the BBC instead of, you know, letting the BBC report the news. If they were blowing up buildings, telling broadcasters that buildings blew up is completely unnecessary. There was no substance or spin or anything to the report. It was just a fact that happened to be wrong at the time. Why would the conspirators have bothered?
We’ve been over this and you continue to ignore the answers.
WTC 1 was 110 stories tall.
WTC 7 was 47.
WTC 6, the wall in between them? 8 stories tall.
WTC 5 was 9.
Do we need a physics lesson to explain how airline debris can go over something short and hit something tall?
Secondly, WTC 4, 5, and 6 all suffered impact, fire damage, and partial collapses. Most of 4 went down. WTC 3 was also destroyed.
The post office was damaged and took 3 years to be reopened. Same with the Verizon building, which was heavily damaged and took 1.4 BILLION dollars to restore. You can see it behind the WTC-7 wreckage here.
I don’t see anything “amazing” about any of this.
GSCl 
wn thinks govt is ineffective and inefficient yet thinks it can pull off mass conspiracies like moon walking and wtc building collapses
You couldn’t make this shit up if you had a squirrel sized brain
Or better
Everyone is in on the conspiracy, except GSCl wn
Did I say that the bureaucracies pulled this off? Did I say the “whole of government” pulled it off?
Nope. I’m saying a small group within that government did.
So you think a small group of individuals faked out, not only their co workers, but the entire world about walking on the moon. The only person to understand this, luckily, is you?
Likewise, you think bush Jr and a couple of his frat buddies coordinated with the Saudis to fly planes into the WTC towers while they demo’d buildings on purpose leaking their story to the news first. You happen to be the only “sane” person on the planet who can descramble everything through newspaper clippings and recordings of the event without having a single shred of evidence at your disposal?
Am I understanding you correctly?