Sponsor | |
|
| | leelee | Feb 27, 2007 7:54pm | It was obviously planed way in advance..all the evidence points to that..
This page shows all events that either reference, or are referenced by, the event 9/11'(Between 8:46-8:55 a.m.)'.
911blimp.net/cached/firsttold.htm [911blimp.net/cached/firsttold.htm]
As well as a pretext for occupation of Afgan (Opium) and Iraq (Oil) and subduing the competition for Israel.
The WTC buildings were insured for billions months before the incident.
and the plans for the new buildings on the site drawn up. |
|
|
Sponsor | |
|
| | leelee | Feb 27, 2007 9:18pm | Someones taking the piss aint they?
Bush said he saw it on telly before it had been brordcast anywhere..
reminds me of the magic bullet and the moon landing
what realy happend? |
|
|
Sponsor |  rationale | Jul 4, 2007 7:40pm | | I have to ask: Couldn't it just be that they they got false information or were just wrong because it was in the process of collapsing/ expected to collapse shortly? The fact that they were inaccurate on their reporting doesn't mean it was an inside job. Correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
|
Sponsor | | kamesan | Jul 4, 2007 8:52pm | | 5: Are you suggesting someone provided false information that later became true? Or are you suggesting someone knew that the building was expected to collapse soon? What sort of person would this "someone" have to be? |
|
|
Sponsor | | rationale | Jul 4, 2007 9:22pm | | 6: All I am saying is perhaps the building was *in the process of collapsing* and the news reporter said it had collapsed. there were millions of people witnessing it. word could have spread that it had collapsed because parts of it were collapsing... |
|
|
Sponsor | | kamesan | Jul 4, 2007 10:25pm | | 7: Someone is able to tell that a building is starting to collapse and will collapse, yet this building doesn't collapse for over twenty minutes. Then suddenly, it collapses into rubble in about ten seconds. And this "someone" is not involved nor has inside information about some process "helping" the building to come down. Do you notice anything wrong with this scenario? |
|
|
Sponsor | | rationale | Jul 6, 2007 9:37pm | | 8: What is your point - are you suggesting that the BBC reporters are in on the conspiracy, and just mentioned the collapse before they were supposed to? Were all 40,000 people who work for the BBC in on the conspiracy, or were just these two people in on the conspiracy, or...? If it is true that they mentioned it before it actually collapsed, doesn't it make more sense that these two people may have received a false report amidst the thousands of other false reports that occur during any crisis? People are panicking - for instance, people in extreme panic could think they are seeing one building when they are seeing another from far away... There were a million inaccurate things happening that day. |
|
|
Sponsor | | kamesan | Jul 7, 2007 10:36pm | | 9: I don't know who knew, but someone knew confidently enough to contact the media or respond when asked. Someone else connected to the BBC accepted the lead as credible or important enough to report amid "a million ... things happening that day." Does this sound like a sincere accident that happened amid a panic? Or was this an accident that happened because the conspirators were in a panic to cover up their botched plan? [The third plane to knock down the third building didn't coming to provide a rationale for the third building to collapse!] |
|
|
|
What Really Happened → Discussion