CNN may have lied about WTC Building 7

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Is the news here that CNN lies?

Or that 9-11 was a set up?

Because neither of them are news.

BUT! HOWEVER! These adverts... I didn't know they were running. Amazing that this is even being talked about on the mainstream news. THAT is news as far as I am concerned.

Thanks dude.




posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 02:43 AM
link   
It's cool to see someone start a thread about this particular building. Building 1 and 2 are still grey areas for me conviction wise but 7? There is no way anyone can sit and tell me with a straight face that it came down the way it did without "help". building 7 is the reason why I am so up in arms about a 911 government coverup and if it wasn't for this particular building I would probably be siding with the "debunkers" Think about it.. If explosives were used to bring it down do you guys understand the implications of such an act? It's late and I don't want to write a novel here but think about the Federal building in Oklahoma.. (Murah) It was a very good example of a "partial" collapse. Think about it



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
"17) Selected persons were told not to fly that day. Newsweek reported that on September 10th, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."...

San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown received a phone call eight hours before the hijacking warning him not to travel by air. Salman Rushdie is under a 24-hour protection of UK Scotland yard; he was also prevented from flying that day. Ariel Sharon canceled his address to Israeli support groups in New York City just the day before his scheduled September 11th address. John Ashcroft stopped flying on public airplanes in July of 2001.


Hmm, not sure what these are supposed to prove.

If Pentagon officials decided not to travel on September 10th, for instance, then isn't it quite likely they'll still be at the Pentagon on 9/11? Not a very smart move there, then.

Willie Brown did not say he was told "not to fly", which is why he was going to fly on the morning of 9/11 anyway. But why would anyone warn him? He wasn't in any danger, the attacks were over before he would even have taken off.

Salman Rushdie was not "prevented from flying on that day", at least not specifically -- the FAA restrictions came into force about a week before. And why would conspirators care about him, anyway? Surely Rushdie being killed would get even more attention paid to radical Islamist groups?

Sharon wasn't scheduled to speak on September 11th, either -- it was the 23rd, I think. And he didn't cancel "the day before". The event was cancelled itself shortly after 9/11.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   
The notion that fire destroyed WTC 1 & 2 in the manner they were destroyed i absolutely ridiculous.

The idea that WTC 7 was destroyed by fire is even more stupid,
No fire had ever caused a steel structure to collapse before or after 9/11.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJustice

Well considering that Larry Silverstein, the lease owner of the building admitted it in that documentary and even Dan Rather says right on CBS "the building was delibrately destroyed by well placed dynamites to knock it down" there's no question about it. Yet CNN doesn't want that to be talked about.


Well, I've got a new Alex Jones cronie to challenge now. You guys keep streaming in here regurgitating the same significantly addressed issues but not once do you get off your cocky backsides and do a little work. If Alex et. al. doesn't spoon feed an idea to you, you're lost.

Challenge: Get hold of Silverstein and get hold of the NYFD person he was on the phone with and clarify what was meant by "pull the building". It's pretty simple actually - but Alex can't seem to do it, or maybe he has and the answer didn't fit his theory...ever thought of that? Silverstein - in the same documentary Alex repeatedly abuses - preface the account of him and the NYFD official agreeing to "pull the building" with the comment that due to the loss of life that day the decision was made. But Alex doesn't want to comment on that part of the context, does he? Because that part of the context points to the "pull the building" comment as being pull the firefighters out.

dead horse - beat further - laziness - unoriginality

*sigh*



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by CyberSEAL
Well, the Empire State Building was built in 1931, and in 1945 a U.S. Air Force bomber crashed into the uppoer floors, starting a fire and damaging, I believe, 3 stories. The building never came close to collapsing, and it was of a steel design similar to the WTC.

First : the design of the Empire State Building isn't remotely similar to the WTC as the State Building has massive amounts of reinforced concrete, the concrete around the ironing protects it much better from fire. Second: such an old plane could carry nowhere near as much fuel as a relatively big, fully laden modern passenger jet.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   
In the pictures after 1 and 2 get hit, 7 has no fires in it or anything, but then it has 3 small fires in the middle of the building then it goes down like a controlled demolition.
A small fire in a building doesn't make it drop straight down. It's funny how he admits to pulling it but people still say that it went down because of fire.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by NoJustice

Well considering that Larry Silverstein, the lease owner of the building admitted it in that documentary and even Dan Rather says right on CBS "the building was delibrately destroyed by well placed dynamites to knock it down" there's no question about it. Yet CNN doesn't want that to be talked about.


Well, I've got a new Alex Jones cronie to challenge now. You guys keep streaming in here regurgitating the same significantly addressed issues but not once do you get off your cocky backsides and do a little work. If Alex et. al. doesn't spoon feed an idea to you, you're lost.

Challenge: Get hold of Silverstein and get hold of the NYFD person he was on the phone with and clarify what was meant by "pull the building". It's pretty simple actually - but Alex can't seem to do it, or maybe he has and the answer didn't fit his theory...ever thought of that? Silverstein - in the same documentary Alex repeatedly abuses - preface the account of him and the NYFD official agreeing to "pull the building" with the comment that due to the loss of life that day the decision was made. But Alex doesn't want to comment on that part of the context, does he? Because that part of the context points to the "pull the building" comment as being pull the firefighters out.

dead horse - beat further - laziness - unoriginality

*sigh*


So you're trying to tell me Larry Silverstein sent construction workers inside building 7 to plant demolitions while there was fire all through it. haha well that is rich I like that. Also if they only did it save lies, why has the media lied about it ever since and tried to cover that up? I only used the Alex Jones documentary to show what Larry Silverstein said that's it . The topic is also about CNN lying about it anyway, they said there was diesel fuel inside the building which is almost as funny as you saying Larry Silverstein sent men inside building 7, that was on FIRE, and put well placed demolition inside of it. I can't stop laughing at the idea.


Larry Silverstein: There's fire everywhere there's no saving that building, I think we need to pull it.
Construction worker: hey hey I ain't goin in ther....
Larry Silverstein: You do what I say, we need to demolish this building NOW, you need to navigate through that fire and put those explosives all throughout the building, you will probably die doing so. But damnit there's so many other lives at stake.
Construction worker: I think I like quit, buddy. Later

I think it's pretty obvious the well placed demolition was in the building before 9/11. Which means they knew before the fact.

Larry Silverstein also took one of the largest insurance policies EVER on the World Trade Center just 7 weeks before 9/11. But leave it to unbelievers like Valhall to have done one of three things with that
1. didn't know
2. tried to leave that information out
3. and this the most common amongst Americans, shrug it off and say "eh, it's just a coincidence"

so I would say YOU gotta do better than that or it's
dead horse - beat further - laziness - unoriginality

[edit on 21-6-2005 by NoJustice]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret
It's cool to see someone start a thread about this particular building. Building 1 and 2 are still grey areas for me conviction wise but 7? There is no way anyone can sit and tell me with a straight face that it came down the way it did without "help". building 7 is the reason why I am so up in arms about a 911 government coverup and if it wasn't for this particular building I would probably be siding with the "debunkers" Think about it.. If explosives were used to bring it down do you guys understand the implications of such an act? It's late and I don't want to write a novel here but think about the Federal building in Oklahoma.. (Murah) It was a very good example of a "partial" collapse. Think about it


Yes, exactly has to be knowledge before the fact. Unless you speak to some people that try to say they sent people inside the building while it's on fire to place well place demolishion. Seriously I'm laughing out loud at the idea. It's funny how it's turning around now and the ones saying conspiracy have better reasoning, better proof than they naysayers, who are reaching at straws to "prove their Government would never do such a thing" It's time to wake up people.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   


So you're trying to tell me Larry Silverstein sent construction workers inside building 7 to plant demolitions while there was fire all through it.


maybe you are reading something completely different to me but Valhall never said that.

The 'pull-it' term has been discussed in other threads and to be honest is being distorted to fit someones theory just like Valhall said.

Also I haven't seen any actual evidence from independent sources (Alex Jones is far from independent as can be seen from his highly suspect editing of what Silverstein said) that there wasn't diesel in WTC 7. Also online polls are the lowest form of an already highly suspicious form of nonsense known as opinion polling, so to place any credibility on them is really clutching at straws.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Lets face facts here people.

No matter what discussion is said. The 'evidence' points in the direction of a controlled demolition.

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER has a fire EVER brought down a steel and concrete reinforced building. EVER!!! Thats the FACTS. FACE IT!

So how can the one of the MOST secure buildings in the USA be brought down with little more than a couple of fires. It STINKS of BS!!!!!!!

No plane hit tower 7. So how can a fire get started???

Larry silverstein interview


"I remember getting a phone call from the Fire dept. commander telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, I said: you know we've had such terrible loss of life maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. uhhhhh.......they made that decision to pull. uhhhh.....so we watched the building collapse"


Now if you don't wanna take notice of this then. You cannot be helped.

WAKE UP!

Peace



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER has a fire EVER brought down a steel and concrete reinforced building. EVER!!! Thats the FACTS. FACE IT!

So how can the one of the MOST secure buildings in the USA be brought down with little more than a couple of fires. It STINKS of BS!!!!!!!

Peace


tell those who were in attendance at the twin towers, the fire brought them down and dat was after the planes hit and they still standing tall .

also being secure does not being being secure from all elements like water, fire, etc. it may be secure from intruders but it wasnt secure from fires or watever. cant be secure if earthquake shake New York if thats possible.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER has a fire EVER brought down a steel and concrete reinforced building. EVER!!! Thats the FACTS. FACE IT!

So how can the one of the MOST secure buildings in the USA be brought down with little more than a couple of fires. It STINKS of BS!!!!!!!

Peace


tell those who were in attendance at the twin towers, the fire brought them down and dat was after the planes hit and they still standing tall .

also being secure does not being being secure from all elements like water, fire, etc. it may be secure from intruders but it wasnt secure from fires or watever.


Hey look don't play the guilt game with me..........

FIRE did not bring down those buildings.

Ummmmmmm...........What about sprinklers........What about the fire.......How exactly did it get started???


cant be secure if earthquake shake New York if thats possible.


Its highly plausible to have an earthquake on the day of 9/11 and have just 1 building fall down.....let alone it be the CIA HQ. AND NO OTHER BUILDINGS............yeeeeeeeaaaahhhhhh Riiiiiiiiiiight...........

Well modern most modern building including the ENTIRE WTC COMPLEX buildings have an Earthquake protection facility which in the case of an earthquake the building WILL STAY STANDING! Even the Pyrimid of Giza had this facility.

The building came down from the middle outwards.......Which indicates the main support I Beams were destroyed.....That is the ONLY way that building could have been brought down.

Fire connot bring a steel and concrete reinforced building down.........NOT WITHOUT THE MAIN I BEAMS being sabotaged or chrges placed on them.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   


Now if you don't wanna take notice of this then. You cannot be helped.

WAKE UP!

Peace


Look it has been discussed on other threads what the term 'pull' means, in the world of firemen it means get out of the building and let it burn because there is nothing they can do. If you dont wanna take notice of this then you cannot be helped...



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
how many posters here are ;

firemen ?
demolitions experts ?
engineers ?


none ?

check out this thread about what LS said.....www.abovetopsecret.com...



In order to really have credibility, I'd argue the supporters of a conspiracy have to prove motive and show evidence of explosive residue found at the scene. What was in bldg 7 that had to be destroyed that couldn't be detroyed by any other means ? I mean if you were trying to make a moral excuse for going to war, is knocking down wtc 7 going to be necessary after wtc 1 and 2 go down ?

Just because it looks similar to other implosions does not make it an implosion.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
pull (pʊl) pronunciation

v., pulled, pull·ing, pulls.

v.tr.

1. To apply force to so as to cause or tend to cause motion toward the source of the force.
2. To remove from a fixed position; extract: The dentist pulled the tooth.
3. To tug at; jerk or tweak.
4. To rip or tear; rend.
5. To stretch (taffy, for example) repeatedly.
6. To strain (a muscle, for example) injuriously.
7. Informal. To attract; draw: a performer who pulls large crowds.
8. Slang. To draw out (a weapon) in readiness for use: pull a gun; pulled a knife on me.
9. Informal. To remove: pulled the engine; pulled the tainted meat product from the stores.
10. Sports. To hit (a ball) so that it moves in the direction away from the dominant hand of the player propelling it, as to the left of a right-handed player.
11. Nautical.
1. To operate (an oar) in rowing.
2. To transport or propel by rowing.
3. To be rowed by: That boat pulls six oars.
12. To rein in (a horse) to keep it from winning a race.
13. Printing. To produce (a print or an impression) from type.

v.intr.

1. To exert force in moving something toward the source of the force.
2. To drink or inhale deeply: pulled on the cold beer with gusto; pull on a cigarette.
3. Nautical. To row a boat.
4. Informal. To express or feel great sympathy or empathy: We're pulling for our new president.

n.

1. The act or process of pulling.
2. Force exerted in pulling or required to overcome resistance in pulling.
3. A sustained effort: a long pull across the mountains.
4. Something, such as a knob on a drawer, that is used for pulling.
5. A deep inhalation or draft, as on a cigarette or of a beverage.
6. Slang. A means of gaining special advantage; influence: The lobbyist has pull with the senator.
7. Informal. Ability to draw or attract; appeal: a star with pull at the box office.

phrasal verbs:

pull away

1. To move away or backward; withdraw: The limousine pulled away from the curb.
2. To move ahead: The horse pulled away and took the lead in the race.

pull back

1. To withdraw or retreat.

pull down

1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
2. To reduce to a lower level.
3. To depress, as in spirits or health.
4. Informal. To draw (money) as wages: pulls down a hefty salary.

pull in

1. To arrive at a destination: We pulled in at midnight.
2. To rein in; restrain.
3. To arrest (a criminal suspect, for example).

pull off Informal.

1. To perform in spite of difficulties or obstacles; bring off: pulled off a last-minute victory.

pull out

1. To leave or depart: The train pulls out at noon.
2. To withdraw, as from a situation or commitment: After the crash, many Wall Street investors pulled out.

pull over

1. To bring a vehicle to a stop at a curb or at the side of a road: We pulled over to watch the sunset.
2. To instruct or force (a motorist) to bring his or her vehicle to a stop at a curb or at the side of a road: The state trooper pulled the speeding motorist over.

pull round

1. To restore or be restored to sound health.

pull through

1. To come or bring successfully through trouble or illness.

pull up

1. To bring or come to a halt.
2. To move to a position or place ahead, as in a race.

idioms:

pull a fast one Informal.

1. To play a trick or perpetrate a fraud.

pull (oneself) together

1. To regain one's composure.

pull (one's) punches

1. To refrain from deploying all the resources or force at one's disposal: didn't pull any punches during the negotiations.

pull (one's) weight

1. To do one's own share, as of work.

pull out all the stops Informal.

1. To deploy all the resources or force at one's disposal: The Inaugural Committee pulled out all the stops when arranging the ceremonies.

pull (someone's) leg

1. To play a joke on; tease or deceive.

pull something

1. To carry out a deception or swindle.

pull strings (or wires) Informal.

1. To exert secret control or influence in order to gain an end.

pull the plug on Slang.

1. To stop supporting or bring to an end: pulled the plug on the new art courses.

pull the rug (out) from under Informal.

1. To remove all support and assistance from, usually suddenly.

pull the string

1. Baseball. To throw an off-speed pitch.

pull the wool over (someone's) eyes

1. To deceive; hoodwink.

pull together

1. To make a joint effort.

pull up stakes

1. To clear out; leave: She pulled up stakes in New England and moved to the desert.

[Middle English pullen, from Old English pullian.]
pull'er n.

SYNONYMS pull, drag, draw, haul, tow, tug. These verbs mean to cause something to move toward the source of an applied force: pull a sled up a hill; drag furniture across the floor; drew up a chair; hauls wood from the forest; a car that tows a trailer; tugged at the oars.
ANTONYM push

if he had said "pull away" or "pull back" you could be right, but that would make no sense to say "let's pull the building" as in to "let's leave the building"

Dan Rather says right on CBS "the building was delibrately destroyed by well placed dynamites to knock it down"

let me repeat that...

Dan Rather says right on CBS "the building was delibrately destroyed by well placed dynamites to knock it down"


Now here's more of the conversation

CBS News anchor Dan Rather: “A large building, in most other cities it would be one of the largest buildings in town probably, Trade Center building 7 has collapsed. Now here were gonna show you a videotape of the collapse it’s self. Now here we go to videotape, the collapse of this building.”

Unknown male voice at CBS: “It’s amazing.”

CBS News anchor Dan Rather: “Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”







[edit on 21-6-2005 by NoJustice]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJustice


CBS News anchor Dan Rather: “Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”


[edit on 21-6-2005 by NoJustice]


Maybe the same thing happened to you as just happened to me - you said so little for so long in that post that your ears stopped working when you got to the important part. I had to read it twice to see just how much you actually ignored.


it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”



HE DIDN'T SAY IT WAS DEMOLISHED! He said it was reminiscent of



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by NoJustice


CBS News anchor Dan Rather: “Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”


[edit on 21-6-2005 by NoJustice]


Maybe the same thing happened to you as just happened to me - you said so little for so long in that post that your ears stopped working when you got to the important part. I had to read it twice to see just how much you actually ignored.


it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”



HE DIDN'T SAY IT WAS DEMOLISHED! He said it was reminiscent of



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
It seems like someone saying 'that building was demolished' and 'gosh, sure looked like when a building gets demolished' are pretty damned distinct statements. I can't imagine how a person can think that they are the same thing.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   


Oh come on, that's not even worth replying to. That's total crap and you know it. Your excuse is like someone having a heart attack and a news reporter saying "wow it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, where someone gets shot." you're totally reaching deperately for excuses.


You are giving out to Valhall for 'reaching deperately for excuses' but you just posted a list of definitions of 'pull' that added nothing to the discussion, infact the definitions work equally well for either theory, except your theory is derived from twisted meanings of incomplete quotes.





new topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join