1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

9/11 - Italian TV Network Covers WTC 7 Evidence

Discussion in 'Historical Events & Figures' started by KeepOurFreedoms, May 4, 2007.

  1. KeepOurFreedoms

    KeepOurFreedoms New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Italian TV Network Covers WTC 7 Evidence

    9/11 blogger
    Wednesday May 02, 2007

    Seven is exploding

    On April 16, 2007, a major Italian network (Canale 5) has aired some conclusive evidence that Building 7 did not collapse on its own, but was deliberately taken down with the use of explosives.

    The piece was part of a larger presentation we provided to the network as an update on the ongoing research on 9/11. In particular, we included a clip we had all seen many times before, but possibly never listened to with the full attention it deserved. Here is the 6 min. segment (please ignore yellow subtitles):

    The video is here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/8267

    Yes, we all saw that last clip more than once, but each time we must have stopped at the powerful evidence the blast itself represents, while disregarding the ensuing exchange, which in our opinion represents the final nail in the coffin of the official version on WTC7. Without even the need to discuss Larry's intentionally ambiguous "pull it" statement.

    Our presentation was broadcast as a rebuttal to a bunch of accusations leveled on the same channel by a group of Italian debunkers against the movie "Inganno Globale" (produced by this writer/website), which is possibly the "flagship" for 9/11 Italian truth seekers, being somehow the equivalent to any other major 9/11 movie in English available on the web.

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/8267
     
  2. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    This is just going to turn into another "our experts vs. your experts" thing. One group of experts says that 7 WTC was brought down as a result of fire and impact damage; one group says it was a controlled demolition. The ideology behind one group's ascertation is that it was the work of radical Muslim hijackers wishing to kill as many Americans as possible; the ideology of the other group says that the whole thing was orchestrated by President Bush as a means for catalyzing the wars in the Middle East that followed 9/11. In the end the evidence on both sides holds some merit and the fact of the matter is that we'll never have 100% evidence for either side, so it really comes down to what you believe.
     
  3. KeepOurFreedoms

    KeepOurFreedoms New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Why are you so limited in your thinking? Do you really think there are only 2 choices to any story?
     
  4. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I simply state that those are the two choices presented most often in relation with this story. We've had discussions about 7 WTC here before and what I described is exactly what happened then. If you have another idea than feel free to present it.
     
  5. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What exactly are the other choices to this story?
     
  6. KeepOurFreedoms

    KeepOurFreedoms New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    You mean neither of you have done any investigation in to the governments theory?
     
  7. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've done a ton of investigation into it, and there really isn't anything conclusive enough to disprove it.
     
  8. KeepOurFreedoms

    KeepOurFreedoms New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    And there is nothing to prove the governments theory.
     
  9. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I was thinking about that. Here's what we should do: build an actual-size, completely perfect replica of 7 WTC and then recreate the exact conditions that occurred on 9/11 that, according to the government, brought the building down. Then we'll see if fire and structural damage from falling debris could cause the building to collapse or not. Of course, in the clinical sense there is no way to recreate EXACTLY what took place on 9/11 so we might have to build a few of them to conduct the experiment a few times. That sounds like a good way to waste taxpayers money.

    Or how about we just go over the list of problems with the idea that 7 WTC was brought down by controlled demolition.

    1. Your government supposedly did this. That means that the President of the United States of America and everyone underneath him who was a part of this (and lets face it, there's no way George "How Do You Say Nuclear Again?" Bush could set all this up by himself) are traitors and mass murderers. Here's where the pool of corruption starts.

    2. A controlled demolition requires a demolition team. Generally speaking there are a lot of people needed to make things go "boom" the way they want them to in a controlled demolition. So, we're going to add one large-scale demolition team to the list of people that would have to be corrupt in order to have pulled this off.

    3. According to the video, news networks aired reports of 7 WTC's collapse long before the collapse actually occurred. Perhaps they were fed data from the government that told them that 7 WTC had collapsed, since the government KNEW it was going to happen, right? There's something key missing. The news agencies were receiving reports from eye witnesses, not from the government. Either you have to add them to the corruption pool or chalk them off as blind idiots. Maybe both.

    4. Many of the police officers seen in the video you posted (talking about how 7 WTC was going to "blow up" and such) are only seen and heard there; they have not come forward with any stories of their own. Add a whole mess of NYPD officers to the corruption pool.

    5. There have been lengthy government studies done on the "how" of 9/11 and those studies have all concluded that 7 WTC collapsed because of structural damage caused by fire and falling debris from the Towers. If it really was a controlled demolition (and is so obviously a controlled demolition that a whole bunch of conspiracy theorists who aren't scientists can spot it) than the government scientists who submitted those reports need to be added to the corruption pool.

    6. And lets not forget the hijackers themselves. I mean, we know that two planes flew into the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11, right? That isn't in dispute (unlike the Pentagon thing which is a completely different argument). So far no one has presented any evidence that those planes were not flown by radical Muslim hijackers as reported. So, unless you want to make the ascertation that a group of militant Muslims decided to attack the WTC on the same day the government decided to covertly destroy 7 WTC, you have to say that our government was in league with al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a highly idealistic organization. They have some pretty warped ideals but that is the basis for their organization. I find it to be a tough swallow that Osama bin Laden would, at this point, want to join forces with GW Bush, even if it was to kill a ton of Americans. And even if he did - don't you think that Mr. bin Laden would have been bragging about it in one of his numerous internet posts?

    So you see, unless you think half of America was corrupt enough to get involved in this, you're kind of sunk. What are the chances that that many Americans would willingly participate in a treasonous plot without a single leak? What are the odds that that many Americans could participate in any government program without a leak?
     
  10. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    KeepOurFreedoms, let me ask you something. What would be the purpose of having controlled demolition of the towers? You already have an attack from a bunch of radical Muslims. If all you want is a pretext for war then you already have it the second that first plane hit, and if not then, surely after the second one hit. All George Bush would have to do is step in front of a camera and say "We've been attacked. We are going to respond." and it wouldn't have been any different reaction from the public that what actually happened. After the attacks were carried out, I just can't seem to find any reason to bring the towers down through demolition.
     
  11. The Founders Intent

    The Founders Intent New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    VA
    What I had heard was that is was brought down, but not in any secret way. It was condemned after 9/11 and not even the fire fighters wanted to go in there because of all the damage. So the city takes a building down, what's the big deal?
     
  12. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    No, 7 WTC collapsed on 9/11. According to the government-sponsored report it was brought down as a result of fire and falling debris weakening its structural integrity; according to conspiracy theorists it was brought down by controlled demolition (still on 9/11, which would imply that the demolition was prepared for in advance of the attacks - hence the conspiracy).

    Of course, I could be being "limited in my thinking" again. Perhaps KeepOurFreedoms would like to enlighten us as to what REALLY happened on 9/11.
     
  13. KeepOurFreedoms

    KeepOurFreedoms New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Wouldn't you like a real investigation regarding 9/11? What the government has told us is just their theory. They have no proof. You do realize there was no major fire in Building 7 don't you? And all 3 buildings were basically in free fall instead of being impeded by the building themselves. And there is absolutely NO WAY that I would believe that 4 planes were hijacked by guys with box cutters. And where was NORAD in all this? And why are some of the so called hijackers still alive?
     
  14. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Define "real investigation."

    I suppose that depends on how you define "proof." As in, whether or not you're capable of accepting that proof can come from the government.

    No fire? My dear, according to all sources (even your own) Building 7 was hit by "large masses of flaming debris." As for the free fall comment, it makes no sense at all. The buildings didn't fall, they collapsed.

    Number one: Don't underestimate a guy with a boxcutter, especially if he's a crazy religious nut and he has a bunch of his crazy religious nut friends around who also have boxcutters and you're completely unarmed.
    Number two: It all happened far too fast for NORAD to get involved.
    Number three: They aren't. There were unsubstantiated rumors that several o the hijackers were still alive after 9/11 but that's all those were - rumors. There was never any proof and several of the sources later admitted they made it up.
     
Loading...

Share This Page