I don’t believe in conspiracy theories.
I don’t normally even bother, unless something rubs me the wrong way. I just see things for what they are. And on 9/11, I was rubbed the wrong way.
I didn’t even care when I woke up that morning for school and saw the TVs. It didn’t seem real to me, and I wasn’t bothered by the attacks. My parents were flustered and I just saw the building crumple. I didn’t even know at the time what the World Trade Center was. But something about it seemed unreal to me.
The first thought that went through my head was, “If giant steel towers were a noticeable target for terrorists, why weren’t they prepared for this kind of attack?” (They were).
As I went into school, the teachers were afraid and made us all pray. But I was not praying.
I had my eyes open.
In later years I bought the media story, but naturally I heard about the media fakery and went to investigate.
I spent many hours looking into each and every theory, the boards of “evidence” with photos and videos with the vague hint of some kind of resolution or definitive conclusion. But the pictures proving CGI tampering seemed just as ethereal as the media clips. Something had to give.
Back then I didn’t understand why I was so interested, but now I get that I was looking for the answer to my gut/intuition’s pleading. Often our intuition will tell us there is something wrong, but we can’t rationalize it until our conscious mind “figures it out.” No wonder I didn’t care for 9/11 that morning that it happened. Somehow I knew there was something amiss.
A couple years later I then read about the directed energy weapon theory, which although interesting was not convincing.
But it led me to a little-known niche of conversation online about World Trade Center Building #7.
The evidence there was much clearer.
I saw videos of WTC7 crumble, and then watched a bunch of videos of demolitioned buildings fall. They were eerily similar.
But still nothing conclusive, so I drew the line and decided there was clearly fishiness here, but I may never know.
Now I have just seen the smoking gun proof I didn’t even know that I needed.
Along with NIST coverups and fabricated collapse models, the fact that no steel skyscraper has ever fallen from simple fires, the evidence of thermite found in the rubble, and now this video, it is all pretty clear.
The following video you are about to watch occurred 23 minutes before the WTC7’s actual collapse.
What you see in this video is the BBC getting the info about the “Solomon Building” (WTC7) having already collapsed and subsequent reporting on other media outlets, WITH THE TOWER STILL VISIBLE BEHIND THE REPORTER AS SHE IS TALKING ABOUT ITS COLLAPSE.
Don’t believe me?
You can see an unedited video here:
Oh, wait, no you can’t.
This is irrefutable evidence of deception.
It may seem small, and not so sinister, but that is precisely why it is so ignored. What this video demonstrates is that someone had the foreknowledge that WTC7 was going to collapse, but we are never told who had this knowledge.
Did firefighters know? Police? Where’d we get this information in advance?
If you dig, of course, you’ll find footage of people in the building before its collapse, not concerned at all. The building is strangely empty and filled with dust.
NIST, a government angency, even claims WTC7’s collapse was sudden and unexpected, despite many supporters of the official 9/11 story claiming it had severe structural damage that led to its demise. The computer simulations they released never match up with reality, and they had to go back and re-structure their models due to complaints of people who knew better.
The only sensible conclusion here is that the media was fed narrative events before they happened and that the government tried to cover it up.
Now for the expected objections, which can be defeated by common sense:
“But it was reported as having already fallen because it had structural damage.”
In that case, BBC would have reportedits impending fall. But that’s not what we got.
We got “the building fell and people died” while the building is hilariously still visible in the background.
But guess what?
Both reported its already having collapsed conveniently long before it really did collapse and was covered by the other media outlets.
Two major errors about an important building, with no interviews or verification of claims made about why WTC7 was going to fall. With
The distinct lack of reporting here, especially given the nature of overreporting during disasters, is a huge clue.
“It was a simple mistake! Media outlets were in a frenzy!”
They sure don’t act like it.
They report it with certainty, almost as if they were tipped off.
The media has been covering disasters for years. They are used to the hustle and bustle. And they put out a fake report on a building that is clearly seen in the background. Conveniently, the footage is then cut off just 5 minutes later. But here’s the thing:
BBC NEVER CLARIFIED ITS MISTAKE.
If this were truly a media “mistake,” they would have corrected their mistake and clarified that WTC7 had not yet fallen. But that is not what they did.
In case you are still in doubt about BBC’s intentions, read their (short) rebuttal of the “mistake” and the following comments. In short, BBC cannot come up with the source of their highly suspicious information.
To this day, 15 years later, BBC has not clarified their source, except for a possible tip from Reuters that the building had already collapsed. “Conspiracy theorists” claim that no steel skyscraper has ever succumbed to fire, and the official report on WTC7 is unable to draw a conclusion. You’d think BBC would have a better grip on their tip-off. But they won’t tell.
And they never will.
“It just fell from collateral damage! It was not blown up by controlled demolition.”
There are a lot of people out there with advanced architectural knowledge that beg to disagree.
But personally, I just prefer to use my own eyes:
“WTC7 was supposed to be demoed anyway.”
Great. None of that was ever reported. You have to really dig to find out that WTC7 was being considered to be demoed before 9/11. In fact I’m having a hard time tracking down the quotes.
And if it WAS demoed that day, that means it was wired and setup in advance. Again, none of which is reported AND government agencies such as NIST claim the exact opposite and are covering it up.
I am forced to conclude now that WTC7 was plotted in advance to fall.
Even the feed cuts off at the end, for crying out loud. I have no real bias or particular interest in 9/11, but I can safely say this incident seals the deal for me. Especially given that most of the reporting footage has been blocked on YouTube, and the BBC claims that the tapes were lost for this monumental fuckup.
Smells like fish to me.
If you want to know whether our government did indeed play a role in 9/11, simply look into WTC7 and THEN ask yourself why NIST would want to cover up its demolition.
THEN go read about how the Patriot Act was made in advance of 9/11.
It’s very clear to me now that WTC 7 was demoed.
And if THAT was covered up, then its extremely reasonable to reason that the Two Towers stories are being covered up as well.
I just love to remember this quote by Frank A. Demartini:
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
I am not saying that 9/11 “was an inside job,” because that is not clear yet.
But what IS clear is that the government knew about it in advance, had a hand in blowing up WTC 7, and has done a thorough coverup job.
How did the government know about WTC7 in advance?
Because SOMEONE fed BBC and CNN their information before the fact.
The NIST report found no evidence supporting conspiracy theories that 7 World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, the window breakage pattern and blast sounds that would have resulted from the use of explosives were not observed. The suggestion that an incendiary material such as thermite was used instead of explosives was considered unlikely by NIST because of observations of the fire and the building’s structural response to the fire, and because it is unlikely the necessary quantity of material could have been planted without discovery.
In other words, NIST, a government agency, doesn’t believe the eyewitnesses who found thermite, reported blast sounds, and saw window breakage. The government itself considers that it blew up WTC7 unlikely, and does so because it observed that fire destroyed the building, despite the fact that no steel highrise has ever succumbed to fire.
I especially love the last sentence:
“…It is unlikely the necessary quantity of material could have been planted without discovery.” – The Government
Hopefully I don’t have to explain to you why that’s funny.
And if it WASN’T a government conspiracy, then ask yourself:
- Why didn’t the government launch any investigation?
- Why isn’t it outraged by the evidence that has come to light?
- Why have government agencies like NIST covered up and explained away the evidence?
- Why is the media still exclusively reporting on 9/11 doubters as “conspiracists” and “crazies?”
The obvious answer to this question is that the government doesn’t want the truth known. SOMEONE told the BBC in advance, after all. If you don’t believe me, just watch it again:
As you can see behind me…