It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

20 min. clip from Alex Jones newest documentry

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
www.prisonplanet.com...


Man this got my heart pumpin again and it is just a 20 min. clip. I would keep the Sears Tower in Chicago in my mind as Larry Silverstein(former owner of the world trade center complex, and recipient of a $3.5 billion insurance payout on a $200 million dollar policy investement), is now a partial owner of the building and it's been said on several occasions that it is a possible target. The firefighters released some of their radio transcrips during the time the buildings were still standing and are now on record for pointing out that the fires in the buildings were under control and almost all put out. The clip also contains some good footage of the building layouts, perticularly wtc 7, and their locations in relation to wtc 1 and 2.

I posted this because it is new information on this subject and should be added to the debate. I know it has already been debated beyond anyones wildest imagination, but can't find it posted yet.




posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Nice video.

I think WTC7 was brought down because when the tower collapsed, a huge amount of debris was forced down into the little underground city they had going. It probably took out that whole CIA underground bunker.

The WTC towers didnt leave a whole lot of debris on the surface. It seems like it was all crammed down into the hole the building was built on.

I think the plane story holds up because it was Ney York City, there must of been TONS of people who seen it, especially the second one. Half the city was probably focused on the building's after the first plane hit. The second plane would of been seen by alot of people. So I dont beleive the news or anyone else lied about the airplanes.

I have a hard time beleiving that we are so incompetant to allow 5 airplanes to be stolen and flown hundreds of miles off course into major cities and defense installations. Thats a huge smack in the face about how dumb you are. If you cant track or control the skies over your own country, you shouldnt have air transportation services.

Thank god or allah or wheover that this attack seemed personal. Because our security, military, and intelligence agencies are not to be trusted with licking stamps, nevermind our security.

But good old capitalism I have to work everyday to be able to build myself a nice shelter to protect myself.

Good old good for nothin Second Amendment I have to pay 500$ for each air defense missile I want to own. God forbid they honor the Constitution and I actually have the right to bear arms. They might label me a terrorist for wanting to setup air defense installation's on my property. I guess the Military are the only one's allowed to have them. Even if they dont actually have any setup.

I have to pay out of my own pocket for a nuclear fallout shelter. The 600 billion dollars for the Military obviously does not include actually protecting the country and its citizens. Im not given chemical protection. Im not protected against bio attacks. My water comes from a source I do not have control over. And god forbid a nuke goes off somewhere, there are no air filtration systems or radiation shielding anywhere I could goto. What exactly the 600 billion dollars goes to I dont know. I know it doesnt include air defense and protecting citizens. Im not sure who gets protected by that 600 billion, or what good it does.

Hopefully it doesnt happen again. They shouldnt build buildings that big anyways. We dont need URBANIA and the potential of mass death.

[edit on 24-3-2005 by Ritual]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
The great LIE is amazing. Why don't you we see Alex Jones on television? Why do people run from the truth? That is prime real estate, ...........

KLS



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   
some pretty blatantly poor evidence, those fire fighters who said it sounded "like explosions"....

most interesting thing was those located in/under building 7, DOD, Secret Service etc...hmmm

Take Care, Az



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by notmindcontrolled
www.prisonplanet.com...


Man this got my heart pumpin again and it is just a 20 min. clip. I would keep the Sears Tower in Chicago in my mind as Larry Silverstein(former owner of the world trade center complex, and recipient of a $3.5 billion insurance payout on a $200 million dollar policy investement), is now a partial owner of the building and it's been said on several occasions that it is a possible target. The firefighters released some of their radio transcrips during the time the buildings were still standing and are now on record for pointing out that the fires in the buildings were under control and almost all put out. The clip also contains some good footage of the building layouts, perticularly wtc 7, and their locations in relation to wtc 1 and 2.

I posted this because it is new information on this subject and should be added to the debate. I know it has already been debated beyond anyones wildest imagination, but can't find it posted yet.


notmindcontrolled, thank you for this new post! There's soo much info, and missinfo, and partial info, on the WTC mess, that most people don't have time to sort through it all. I already knew for a fact the WTC didn't get detroyed by the 2 planes. But it'll be fun to see this info you posted mess up the "fence sitters".

BTW, did you know on the day the WTC went down, the people who flew the 2 planes were caught? Yeah, only 1 newspaper in the world covered it!
There was a long high speed police chase along the Hudson river. Cop cars finally caught a van full of (nope they weren't Al Qieda either! And they didn't work for the guy who was buisness partners with Bush for 30 years - Osama Bin Laden).
The people in the van flew the two airplanes using remote control on the ground.
After the cops arrested them, impounded the van, and the remote control devices.... the Feds showed up a few hours later and took the prisoners, and evidence. But the cops were able to call up the 1 newspaper and report it all before the Feds shut the cops up.

- The info that Bush's younger brother was in charge of WTC security is new info to me! LOL! And his contract ran out on the DAY of the destruction! LOL!

- I do like the extra attention they give to the fact that the Hilton Hotel skyscraper that was next to the towers had no debris damage serious enough to cause fires, or to destroy it. Meanwhile WTC tower 7 which was waaaay farther away, suddently catches fire for absoutly .... no.... reason!

[edit on 26-3-2005 by OpenSecret2012]



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ritual
Nice video.

I think WTC7 was brought down because when the tower collapsed, a huge amount of debris was forced down into the little underground city they had going. It probably took out that whole CIA underground bunker.



Impossible! The Bunker was very far away. Oh I forgot to mention on my trips to NYC, I've been inside the underground area of the WTC. It's not an "underground city" LOL! It's just a small underground mall with 1 level, rows of bank ATMs, subway station, one of the best bookstores in the country
usual fast food resturants, and theater. ALL of it is located directly underneath both towers, and underneath the land that's inbetween both towers. Some of it is within a 25 foot radious of the footprint of the towers. The theater is directly under the ground that's between the 2 towers. I've seen many musical performances there, and concerts. None of it is underneath WTC tower 7.

Next, WTC tower 7 was a bunker. A modern pillbox. Above, on the sides, and below. It was built to withstand a direct airstrike, nuclear attack, and more! It was ment to become the central command post for the mayer, CIA, FBI. Simular to the special bunker the president has incase the USA gets invaded.

Next, how the freekin come none of the "underground" debris smashed the basements of other nearby buildings? Like the Hilton Hotel which was right next to the WTC?



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   
I used to think Alex Jones was on to something untill I read this..

Maybe this is why he isnt on the News...

Heres the link to the whole article, which pretty much crushes any "conspiricies" about 9/11

Let the Ignorance Denial Begin..

Jones getting any clearer for ya?



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 03:40 AM
link   
While Alex Jones's determination is admirable, his mental health is questionable. Just watch the end of his Grove video.

I can't believe that people believe that it is so impossible to think that some well-coordinated and determined people could pull off 911. Off course they caught the US off guard..... and the world for that matter...... because it had never been done before! No one was expecting it. Aside from some chatter.... that I might add was buried among the million other threats the NSA, CIA and FBI monitor, there was no substantial warning.

peace



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Oh, boy...


I'm not even going there with the PM article. Alex Jones does his best to offer documented evidence, yet the PM puts out a hit piece with little basis on reality and everyone accepts it as fact. Talk about sheeple...



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
I used to think Alex Jones was on to something untill I read this..

Maybe this is why he isnt on the News...

Heres the link to the whole article, which pretty much crushes any "conspiricies" about 9/11

Let the Ignorance Denial Begin..

Jones getting any clearer for ya?



Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but there is NEW info at the link the guy who made this thread posted in the first post.
Silverstein has said that yes WTC 7 was destroyed on purpose. Tooo bad for that site you link to which talked to experts who said WTC 7 went down from fire and debris from the WTC. LOL! Silverstein, and the firemen on purpose detonated WTC 7


Also the Hotel skyscraper that was next to the WTC towers suffered no fires, or major debris damage. While WTC 7 which was waaaay far away, mysteriously catches fire, and "suffers major structer damage".



Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline “kink” that signals WTC 7’s progressive collapse.


Debunked!

------------------------



Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators.
Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line.


Alright, notice they at first say they believe (meaning they're not sure) the fire was fed by tankS of diesel fuel. But then they refut their own arguement by admitting the tanks were too small.
But then they say there was a large tank in the basement.
- Then the basement should've caught fire.
- The fire would've burned out after the diesel ran out.
- Ummm... Silverstein admitted they on purpose destroyed the building? Soo much for the fire being the reason!
- Even if that floor went on fire, it means nothing! The video in the link in the first post on this thread shows an ENTIRE skycraper on fire for DAYS! And it didn't melt, or fall!!!!!!!!!
- Ummm... Silverstein admitted they on purpose destroyed the building? Soo much for the fire being the reason!

DEBUNKED!

------------------------------------------



the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.


Whoah! Wait! This site you linked to, that you say debunks Alex Jones... this site you linked to gets their sources from... the US Goverment! Ummm... isn't the US Goverment the ones who are ... you know... the suspects of the coverup?????!!!!!!

Your link has been DEBUNKED and made UNUSABLE!

--------------------------------------------------------



FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat.


1. Alex Jones shows a REAL LIFE example of another skyscraper fire. In it the entire skyscraper catches fire, for days!. After the fire goes out, the building never falls, doesn't melt! Out of every skyscraper fire ever in history, NONE of them resulted in a single one melting, or falling.

2. There was no intense heat in the WTC! Proof? Live people were standing IN the site of impact! All calling for help! Ummm.... you do know that no one can stand in 1,000 degree heat and live? LOL!!!!

DEBUNKED!



NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat

DEBUNKED by the above 2 points!



the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.


DEBUNKED by the above 2 points! OK I said no human can survive 1000 degree heat. NIST says it was 1,800 degree heat. OK... sooo anyone know of any humans who can survive 1,800 degree heat???



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   


I think WTC7 was brought down because when the tower collapsed, a huge amount of debris was forced down into the little underground city they had going. It probably took out that whole CIA underground bunker.



Damn your in denial dude, i mean Larry Silverstein says he pulled building 7, the idea that, that building fell because of fire is absolutely ridiculous, i mean come on, the whole thing fell in on it self at the rate of free fall.

9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   
First, I am not saying that Jones is right or wrong on 9-11. I have watched his tapes since since the late 90,s and have seen him not tell the whole truth about things so I am suspect about what he has to say. Second, I would like to point out one thing that I have not heard mentioned and that is the amount of debris in tons that fell to the ground from the 2 towers. You would all agree that earthquakes have brought down buildings before or at least weakened them to the point that they were condemned because of the quake.. The huge amount of debris would have created an earthquake. What are the ages of the Hotel that did not fall and the age of wtc7? Newer buildings have to conform to stricter earthquake standards. Have you seen the movie Force 10 from Navarone . The allies blow up a dam to take out a bridge. The dam does not go right after the initial explosives go off; it takes some time for the weight of the water against the dam to further weaken the damage from the explosions before causing the dam to give. Wct7 was most likely brought down because it was unsafe and was condemned. What are the reasons that the government would want wtc7 to be destroyed?

I had not heard before Alex Jones video firemen saying they heard explosions that were from bombs before. I know several firemen that were there that day. I think they are from Ladder Company 10 or something like that. I have hunted deer with them for the last 3 years at a friends place in the fall. None of them have ever mentioned any type of conspiracy or that the builders were brought down from bombs. One of the guys is at the very top of the NYFD. One of the other guys is a Chief. I will have to get in contact with them and see what they have to say.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
O, you guys made me do this..specially "OpenSecret2012", Soooo here we go..Now pay attention people!




Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.





A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."


Hmm interesting when you consider....



There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

and..



The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.


oh yes, and..



On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.


Hmmm, ya what a bunch of nut jobs...If that aint enough, then how about..




CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."


Survey Says :



Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.


and..



NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.


Oh ya, and...



According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."





There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.





Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."





WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.



So you can believe all this "non-sense" or take the Gosple truth from Alex Jones, (who has also "infiltrated" the Bohemian Grove Guys.) I know the above theory is just to far out for you to understand. I mean, how could we possibly have been "just attacked"? There HAS to be a conspiricy. Hmm. I dont think so. I think we were caught with out pants down. Plain and simple. There is no reason why they would that. Just no logical reason.

Rather, paranoia has taken over. Tell me you think a missle hit the pentagon to...Please tell me that !!



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae



I think WTC7 was brought down because when the tower collapsed, a huge amount of debris was forced down into the little underground city they had going. It probably took out that whole CIA underground bunker.



Damn your in denial dude, i mean Larry Silverstein says he pulled building 7, the idea that, that building fell because of fire is absolutely ridiculous, i mean come on, the whole thing fell in on it self at the rate of free fall.

9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!


No you cannot understand English.

I said that when the two towers collapsed, all of the debris was forced down into an underground tunnel which connected WTC7 with the two towers. And that it might have destroyed WTC7's foundation enough to warrant the demolition of the building so it could be rebuilt.

I actually beleive most of Mr. Jones allegations. The Patriot Act defines Alex Jones and even me as domestic terrorists for even talking about the possibility that it could of been a scheme from the worlds biggest companies, or a govt. entity.

But I know that Arabs could of done it also.

Next time try and read my post before throwing a hissy.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
I used to think Alex Jones was on to something untill I read this..

Maybe this is why he isnt on the News...

Heres the link to the whole article, which pretty much crushes any "conspiricies" about 9/11

Let the Ignorance Denial Begin..


Jones getting any clearer for ya?







"But who is Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics who is behind the article? American Free Press has learned that he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.".....
"Chertoff said he was the "senior researcher" of the piece. When asked if he was related to Michael Chertoff, he said, "I don't know." Clearly uncomfortable about discussing the matter further, he told me that all questions about the article should be put to the publicist ? the one who never answers the phone.".....
" "Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Judy said, "Yes, of course, he is a cousin." "

Here is some quotes from this article 305chertoffscousinwww.prisonplanet.com...


In my opinion, the PM article is dis-information. I read it and it is totally obvious to me that it is just a load. They didn't even mention the PBS interview with Larry Silverstein and why, when asked, did Benjamin Chertoff claim he did not know his own cousin? I have seen people post up that they believe that wtc 7 was brought down due to its supposed damage and it was not safe for it to remain, but that still doesn't explain why our gov't would pre-wire and set the explosives in a perfectly good building. Is that sop here in the U.S.?



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
I used to think Alex Jones was on to something untill I read this..

Maybe this is why he isnt on the News...

Heres the link to the whole article, which pretty much crushes any "conspiricies" about 9/11

Let the Ignorance Denial Begin..

Jones getting any clearer for ya?



I am still wating for an answer on this video...

9/11 myths debunked . . .

Wanna shed some light on this.. or do you want to stand by your convictions???



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Did you actually read the Popular Mechanics article?

I would not say it debunked anything. In fact just proves Popular Mechanics doesnt know much.

Only 14 fighter aircraft could of taken of on 9/11 in the whole United States? Yeah ok...

THat the blip on the underneath of the airplane was an optical illusion? Yeah ok.... This is like a bad UFO conspiracy. Maybe it was swamp gas or Aurora Borealis.

That the Air Force has only intercepted one plane over the US in the last decade is also bull. Watch all of the documentaries on drug runners and refugees from CUBA. They use airplanes and have been intercepted. So just proves that Popular Mechanics doesnt really know what it is talking about.

That the planes sliced the foundation and created a conduit for jet fuel to cause destruction of the entire building. That they are going on their information from FEMA and the Department of Commerce. Hmmm why owuld you trust these sources to debunk a government conspiracy? That is just not logical thinking on the part of POpular Mechanics. But isnt POpular Mechanics supposedly owned by the government (thought I read that here), so it makes sense how dumb they are.

That fire could have brought down the towers? How? The fires were not really burning when the towers collapsed. And if anything it just would of weakened the building. Find out how strong that steel frame was and see if you reduce its potential strength by 50%(from being heated by fire) that it would of not beena ble to hold up the vuilding from the 70+ floors. I dont think POpular Mechanics debunked anything, I think they came out with a pathetic attempt with no real closure.

I dont see how the dust coming out the side of the building would of proved the towers were brought down by demolitions? What did they pick the weakest conspiracies to try and debunk? No demolition I have ever seen has showed huge dust clouds coming out. So I dont know who this expert was, but it is common sense to me that dust clouds would of came out with such a huge building in either case of it collapsing by fire, or by demolition. I dont see how debunking this would prove any of those cases, or disprove one of them. I guess Popular Mechanics was running our of conspiracies they could easily debunk with a paragraph.

They tried to debunk the seismic readings and saying that there is no evidence that the seismic readings proved a demolition. Yeah maybe not, but there isnt any evidence that proves otherwise either, nor did they list any. And I would think that if there was seismic readings before the collapse started that it would prove explosives.


Cmon did you actually read this article? It is full of bs with no facts. The people who tried to debunk these things didnt really come up with any real arguments. Not as far as I can see.

Whatever im not saying that the conspiracies are true, I just dont think they proved otherwise.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Thank you for posting that notmindcontrolled!



You have voted notmindcontrolled for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.


How anybody could still believe the governments story of the events after seeing this I don't know.
After watching this and "9-11 In Plane Site" it is obvious it was a pre-planned inside job IMHO.
The gov is just relying on the publics gullibility and inability, or refusal, to see the truth right in front of them.

BTW "banned member" Popular mech is owned by the Hearst Corporation, one of the wealthiest corporations in the world. They not only publish magazines they aslo deal in REAL ESTATE.
And we know who really controls things now don't we? Yes, the corporations. I think it's a no brainer.

[edit on 26/3/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
O, you guys made me do this..specially "OpenSecret2012", Soooo here we go..Now pay attention people!




Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.


Half of your entire attempt at a response revolves around the siesmagraphs.
1. forget the siesmagraphs! BTW, the majority of people trying to smack the goverment into coming true, are NOT using the siesmagraphs in their arguements.
Hell, there's more people behind the "extra fuel pods on the airplanes" theory than people behind the "siesmagraphs" theory. Even a guy on Nightline mentioned there were extra fuel pods on the airplans. Ted Koppel instantly called for commercial, when they came back, that guy had been ejected from the guest panel LOL!

2. It is a brutal, hardcore fact, that LIVE people were standing inside the point of impact asking for help. This totally refutes all talk about there being an intense fire caused by the Jet fuel that melted the steel (at 2,000 to 2,500 degrees), weakend the steel (at 1,000 to 1,800 degrees). Since no human can remain concious above 200 to 300 degrees LOLOL!!!

3. And read this very slowly and carefully ---> the SOURCE of the report at that site you linked to ... IS the US Goverment! The US Goverment are the ones being accused of a cover up!



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.


OK pls explain to me what physical damage WTC 7 suffered...
And why buildings closer than WTC 7 to WTC 1&2 where unharmed.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join