Two reasons, both of which have been explained to you in great detail before, yet here you are pretending ignorance again. First off, the NIST report on WTC 7 came out AFTER the 9/11 commission report. Second, the collapse of WTC 7 had nothing to do with the attack itself. Just like the destruction of WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6. None of them were touched on in the 9/11 commission report, yet they were all destroyed to the point they had to be torn down. Do you have evidence WTC 7 was a target of the attack and thus germain to the 9/11 commission report? No. Do you have any other compelling reason why WTC 7 should have been part of the 9/11 commission report? No. Are you going to continue to make this lame claim time and time again? Of course.
Once again, another thread where Fraud imagines that people can wire a building for demolition without any of the thousands of people that work there knowing, or without any of the hundreds of people doing the wiring speaking up after they realize what happened.
Black ops occur all the time my angry friend. They're called black ops partly because nobody is supposed to know about them..9/11 was an inside job, and not cave dwellers waving box knives that defeated the entire Armed Forces of the US. Simple really.
Building 7 was damaged considerably by the collapse of one of the towers, had fires for about 1/3 of the floors for most of the day, and was given up on my the firefighters because they thought it would collapse since one wall was bowing out and the building was leaning. I was a tube in tube design like the towers and had full span floors like the towers. It is obvious when the penthouse started collapsing that nothing would hold it up as the full span floors would be compromised. [video=youtube_share;IwdD6ERutEI]http://youtu.be/IwdD6ERutEI[/video]
True. The term invokes many different interpretations I'm sure. Fact is they occur routinely all over the world and have throughout history.
Which is why truthers are scared of their own shadows and run from any actual discussion. See, people demand EVIDENCE of a black op, not just someone's paranoid delusion that black ops are everywhere so 9/11 was one too. That is a RETARDED POSITION to take and one that, frankly, you can't defend.
From this clip: http://www.truthmove.org/content/black-ops/ Black operations are almost never officially acknowledged, remaining the highest of secrets long after their completion. “Plausible deniability” and the compartmentalization of various duties are integral to this process. Plausible deniability is the process by which a country, agency, or individual maintains the ability to deny involvement in an operation. For instance, if there is no record that you received a memo, you could read the memo but still profess ignorance. Compartmentalization of our government agencies allows secret project groups to set up exclusive lines of communication. In this way the most powerful people are able to coordinate the actions of many who have no knowledge of their role in a covert plan. Black ops are inherently secretive, deceptive, and undemocratic—there is no oversight by the people; a small anointed few decide what to do and hide their role from the wider public. Deconstructing black operations is a centerpiece of the Truth Movement. Examining black ops can give us a more accurate understanding of how governments actually work. Because of the shadowy nature of black ops, one must seek out alternative sources, do active research, and think for oneself. Black ops refer to covert actions and activities that are held secret due to their questionable ethical or legal implications. In this context we are concerned with black ops in relation to government, military, and intelligence agencies, funded by US tax dollars, that receive little public or government oversight. Terrorist-style actions such assassinations, sabotages, supporting of resistance movements, false flag operations and so on—usually fall under the heading of black ops.
Nonresponsive to my post, as usual. While the generally accepted account is rife with things that, on the surface, might seem implausible, the fact is that's how it happened. And your simple-minded dismissal of it with a single sentence filled with half-truths and outright fallacies does not address that.
Those terms and parameters could fit underneath practically anything military or covert action wise though. Black operations to me, are 'eyes only' operations. I'm talking, President, Sec of Defense, Intelligence Director, and the military guys and/or operatives doing the field work. That's it. And these are the missions that are not talked about in the newspapers, if any records are kept at all (because of how volatile the mission) that isn't blacked out, and they are conducted with the most elite teams that our armed forces have to offer, like Delta, SEALS, Recon, SAD. Basically, black ops is covert action dialed up to eleven...or that's just how I've always imagined it.
Do you think your definition of 'Black Ops' happened during the events of 9/11? If so, what is the minimum number of people would that entail?
