Trending twitter topic today, on 9/11 anniversary is "BUILDING 7"
What is building 7? You should never ask the Internet. The conspiracy posits that 9/11 was a diversion designed to purposely destroy evidence of financial crimes, and justify nanny-state neo-conservative dominance of the world.
Evidence of a conspiracy? Three lines..
1) The steel-reinforced 40 story building was destroyed by a fire, not hit by plane. It was on fire. The way the building fell was suspicious. Very peculiar. It went directly downward in freefall, synchronized, looking like a controlled demolition. An office fire can do that? It definitely does not look like a building on fire would come down.
https://x.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1701305109836087488
2) Verifiably, a BBC reporter reported that the building had collapsed ~20 minutes before it actually did. You can see the building still standing in the background as they deliver the news.
3) There were some secrets in there. Sketchy financial institutions, clandestine CIA operations. And its the only other building that collapsed.
Does anyone other than MetalBrain believe this stuff? The way it's presented on Twitter, it looks pretty convincing that building 7 was a purposefully demolished.
@wildgrass saidWell, point 3 could be true. Not that it’s got anything to do with anything. There are sketchy CIA locations every-fukking-where.
Trending twitter topic today, on 9/11 anniversary is "BUILDING 7"
What is building 7? You should never ask the Internet. The conspiracy posits that 9/11 was a diversion designed to purposely destroy evidence of financial crimes, and justify nanny-state neo-conservative dominance of the world.
Evidence of a conspiracy? Three lines..
1) The steel-reinforced 40 story ...[text shortened]... it's presented on Twitter, it looks pretty convincing that building 7 was a purposefully demolished.
And DGSE, MI6, FSB and MSS too. Indeed, the world’s like a huge Savoy nowadays.
Anyhoo..
Point 1: heard it before.
I can see why this fuels conspiracy theories. If I was to hazzard a guess, I would think that the buildings’ integrity were gone (meaning it was, from a certain point, going to break off or tumble; leading to a lot more damage and probably deaths in nearby buildings) and that they used a controlled explosion to bring it down on the spot. That would be my guess for the twin towers as well, by the way.
But why be so secretive about that? It does seem strange to me; you’d need a structural engineer to be able to properly estimate the chances of this happening randomly.
As for point 2: utter hogwash.
If this happened, the BBC reporter was probably talking about one of the buildings that had already collapsed.
@shavixmir saidWelp, I guess I'm not the only one skeptical here. There were several reports released "explaining" how building 7 came down, and none of them involved an admission that controlled explosions were used. From angles I have seen, it isn't like it had a chunk out the side of it from building debris landing on it. It didn't even look like a very big fire in the video.
Well, point 3 could be true. Not that it’s got anything to do with anything. There are sketchy CIA locations every-fukking-where.
And DGSE, MI6, FSB and MSS too. Indeed, the world’s like a huge Savoy nowadays.
Anyhoo..
Point 1: heard it before.
I can see why this fuels conspiracy theories. If I was to hazzard a guess, I would think that the buildings’ integrity were ...[text shortened]... ppened, the BBC reporter was probably talking about one of the buildings that had already collapsed.
If true that an engineer looked at it and determined it was coming down anyway, it doesn't make logistical or logical sense to rig controlled explosions on the same afternoon that the planes hit.
Look at the Oklahoma City federal building bomb aftermath. The building was cut in half with that bomb, and remained standing.
Point 2 is verifiably true. It was not fact checked by me or twitter. Various news organizations simply called it a journalistic "mistake". Somehow they just accidentally stumbled on reporting the collapse of a 3rd building, well before it went down.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/09/11/bbc-news-report-on-911-was-a-mistake-not-proof-of-plan-fact-check/70826459007/
@wildgrass said"The way it's presented on Twitter, it looks pretty convincing that building 7 was a purposefully demolished"
Trending twitter topic today, on 9/11 anniversary is "BUILDING 7"
What is building 7? You should never ask the Internet. The conspiracy posits that 9/11 was a diversion designed to purposely destroy evidence of financial crimes, and justify nanny-state neo-conservative dominance of the world.
Evidence of a conspiracy? Three lines..
1) The steel-reinforced 40 story ...[text shortened]... it's presented on Twitter, it looks pretty convincing that building 7 was a purposefully demolished.
Are you saying it does not look that way to you? Forget about what you were told not to believe and just go by appearance alone. Does it appear to be a controlled demolition? Yes or no?
@shavixmir said"I would think that the buildings’ integrity were gone (meaning it was, from a certain point, going to break off or tumble; leading to a lot more damage and probably deaths in nearby buildings) and that they used a controlled explosion to bring it down on the spot. That would be my guess for the twin towers as well, by the way"
Well, point 3 could be true. Not that it’s got anything to do with anything. There are sketchy CIA locations every-fukking-where.
And DGSE, MI6, FSB and MSS too. Indeed, the world’s like a huge Savoy nowadays.
Anyhoo..
Point 1: heard it before.
I can see why this fuels conspiracy theories. If I was to hazzard a guess, I would think that the buildings’ integrity were ...[text shortened]... ppened, the BBC reporter was probably talking about one of the buildings that had already collapsed.
That is ridiculous. There was no time to do that. Do have any idea how much pre planning and time it takes to place explosives in just the right place to do a CD like that? Besides, the government denied controlled demolitions were used. You are not supposed to accept CDs were used. You are guilty of thought crimes. Give up your tin foil hat.
@wildgrass saidNot just the BBC, it was CNN as well. They were told in advance that building 7 had or was about to come down before it came down. It looks exactly like a controlled demolition. Not a little, but exactly. But don't believe your lying eyes, that is what we are told.
Welp, I guess I'm not the only one skeptical here. There were several reports released "explaining" how building 7 came down, and none of them involved an admission that controlled explosions were used. From angles I have seen, it isn't like it had a chunk out the side of it from building debris landing on it. It didn't even look like a very big fire in the video.
If tru ...[text shortened]... /factcheck/2023/09/11/bbc-news-report-on-911-was-a-mistake-not-proof-of-plan-fact-check/70826459007/
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/102-how-did-they-know-examining-the-foreknowledge-of-building-7-destruction
@wildgrass saidHere is proof that people were warning that building 7 was about to come down.
Trending twitter topic today, on 9/11 anniversary is "BUILDING 7"
What is building 7? You should never ask the Internet. The conspiracy posits that 9/11 was a diversion designed to purposely destroy evidence of financial crimes, and justify nanny-state neo-conservative dominance of the world.
Evidence of a conspiracy? Three lines..
1) The steel-reinforced 40 story ...[text shortened]... it's presented on Twitter, it looks pretty convincing that building 7 was a purposefully demolished.
#2 is unquestionably true.
One conspiracy theory I heard was that building 7 had a homing signal being broadcast for the planes to fly over before hitting buildings 1 and 2. Supporting this theory is the fact not every plane went to their targets. One was brought down and speculation is that it was supposed to hit building 7 to destroy the evidence of the homing signal.
@metal-brain saidThe building collapse is consistent with what a controlled demolition looks like.
"The way it's presented on Twitter, it looks pretty convincing that building 7 was a purposefully demolished"
Are you saying it does not look that way to you? Forget about what you were told not to believe and just go by appearance alone. Does it appear to be a controlled demolition? Yes or no?
@wildgrass saidAgreed
The building collapse is consistent with what a controlled demolition looks like.
@wildgrass saidAgreed. But that in itself is not motive.
The building collapse is consistent with what a controlled demolition looks like.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html
CNN reported that “another building was on fire and looks to be collapsing or has collapsed.”
The BBC reporter probably, picking up in that report, said it during her piece.
Take a stand back folks.
There’s a major disaster unfolding, buildings have come down in a major city, hijackers, planes, terrorists… reporters are reporting on the spot, live, mass panic, etc.
There is going to be wrong reporting, exaggerations, all sorts of things happening.
CNN and the BBC did not predict a bloody building going down as part of a conspiracy. At most it’s a coincidence.
Good grief.
And I know nobody ever officially claimed it was a controlled explosion. I admit that it looks dubious enough to cause conspiracy theories.
I think the same about the twin towers themselves.
All I’m saying is that, to me, it looks like controlled explosions to bring the buildings down safer than letting them fall randomly.
As to how fast such a bombing rig could be set up in such a panicked situation, I don’t know. I’m not a demolition expert (no fukkin’ surprise there, I’m sure).
This being said, the important point is: “I don’t know.”
And that does not mean a massive conspiracy, because I think the US government invited the planes in. Ridiculous.
@shavixmir saidThe motive was to invade Afghanistan to increase opium production. The Taliban outlawed poppy growing which put a dent into the heroin trade. BTW, the Taliban are doing the same thing again right now.
Agreed. But that in itself is not motive.
Perhaps opiates are being made using other methods now so poppy growing is not as important as it used to be. Genetically modified yeast and bacteria can be used now.
@metal-brain saidYeah… uhuh….
The motive was to invade Afghanistan to increase opium production. The Taliban outlawed poppy growing which put a dent into the heroin trade. BTW, the Taliban are doing the same thing again right now.
Perhaps opiates are being made using other methods now so poppy growing is not as important as it used to be. Genetically modified yeast and bacteria can be used now.
Edit: 🙄
@shavixmir
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/taliban-bans-drug-cultivation-including-lucrative-opium-2022-04-03/
@metal-brain saidNope.
The motive was to invade Afghanistan to increase opium production. The Taliban outlawed poppy growing which put a dent into the heroin trade. BTW, the Taliban are doing the same thing again right now.
Perhaps opiates are being made using other methods now so poppy growing is not as important as it used to be. Genetically modified yeast and bacteria can be used now.