Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

CNN may have lied about WTC Building 7

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Well what I can say. There's always some weak excuse that can be made for anything out there. I mean O.J. Simpson got off the hook didn't he. I think I've done my best to show proof and I'm sorry I don't think any of the replies hold any ground. That's why the Government gets away with stuff like this because there's always the majority that will makes excuses for them. But I guess that's just my opinion.

I've said my peace, do with this topic as you please.

[edit on 21-6-2005 by NoJustice]




posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJustice

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." In your argument that it was a fire why didn't he say "reminiscent of a fire" it's no different than the heart attack/shot scenerio.



[edit on 21-6-2005 by NoJustice]


uhhh - because he wasn't describing the fire??? He was describing the building collapsing. Does this sound like a logical mind (she laughs considering she's asking a very illogical mind that question):

"That building just collapsed like a fire!" *
*

That would be very much like your mother giving birth and saying "man! that's just like the last time I ate cabbage after 8 p.m.!"

We're hoping she didn't mix her metaphors that way - but....



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJustice
Well what I can say. There's always some weak excuse that can be made for anything out there.

Yeah, like saying that when the guy said 'thats reminiscent of a demolition' that what he really meant was 'thats a demolition'.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Wasn't this thread closed?
Should have stayed that way. All this has been gone over already, many times.
The demo people have absolutely no proof to back their claims. In another thread like this, there's a link to a demolition company that talks about the 9/11 collapses. It'll be nice for you people to actually learn something from experts on the subject and not go by some moron with webspace. I'll try to find that link, some of you really really need to look and learn.


There's alot of ignorance being spread throughout this thread, I'll just pick out the best (meaning worse) statements.




WALTER: The building is brought down by explosives. Clearly if you look at Larry Silverstein in a movie he claims he told the fire department of the city of New York to pull the building.

1. The fire department would not have been responsible for demolishing the building. So why would Larry ask them too?

2. Has it even been proven yet that someone told someone to pull the building? Does anyone have audio of that?
Also, did they say it as in "do it" or as it "it needs to be done"? Because of the way the towers fell (causing a lot of debris to overspread the building 7 area), and because of all the damage to it's southward face as well as the fires, 7 was going to have to be demolished anyway.

3. You don't demolish a building like that, like that. Implosions are meant to do just that.....implode. Not collapse.


More on building 7:


WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02] According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 4/02] Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.” [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02] Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02] The building will collapse hours later.





The area around WTC Building 7 is evacuated at this time (4:30). [Kansas City Star, 3/28/04] New York fire department chief officers, who have surveyed the building, have determined it is in danger of collapsing. Several senior firefighters have described this decision-making process. According to fire chief Daniel Nigro, “The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.” [Fire Engineering, 9/02]


Here's where the demo people get their stuff from.


Building 7 of the WTC complex, a 47-story tower, collapses (5:20). No one is killed. [MSNBC, 9/22/01; CNN, 9/12/01; Washington Post, 9/12/01; Associated Press, 8/19/02 (B)] Many questions will arise over the cause of this collapse in the coming weeks and months. Building 7, which was not hit by an airplane, is the first modern, steel-reinforced high-rise to collapse because of fire. [Chicago Tribune, 11/29/01; Stanford Report, 12/3/01; New York Times, 3/2/02] Some later suggest that the diesel fuel stored in several tanks on the premises may have contributed to the building's collapse. The building contained a 6,000-gallon tank between its first and second floors and another four tanks, holding as much as 36,000 gallons, below ground level. There were also three smaller tanks on higher floors. [Chicago Tribune, 11/29/01; New York Times, 3/2/02; New York Observer, 3/25/02; FEMA study, 5/1/02] However, the cause of the collapse is uncertain. A 2002 government report concludes: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” [FEMA study, 5/1/02] Some reports indicate that the building may have been deliberately destroyed. Shortly after the collapse, CBS news anchor Dan Rather comments that the collapse is “reminiscent of ... when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down.” [CBS News, 9/11/01] In a PBS documentary broadcast in 2002, the World Trade Center's leaseholder Larry Silverstein talks about a phone call from the Fire Department commander he had on 9/11. Silverstein recalls saying to the commander about the building: “You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.” [PBS, 9/10/02] It is unclear what Silverstein meant by the phrase “decision to pull.”

So he did NOT say he "pulled" the building. The decision was made.
1. Planning a implosion takes time. Lots of it.
2. It was impossible to even get to building 7, let alone brings pounds upon pounds of explosives to the site.
3. 1+2 = Not possible for it to have been demolished from the time the decision was made until the collapse.
4. When has a 47 story tall building ever withstood fires for that long as well as significant damge and not collapsed?

All that and more here:
www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Moving on:


so how can that bring down two structured buildings that were designed specifically to have airplanes flown into them at high speed AND survive with minimal structural damage

I know this was addressed. But just to reiterate, the buildings were tested (*not designed*) for much smaller airplanes crashing into them. And those test did not include damage done as a result of the fires from the crash.
(again, link in another thread that I can't find right now...will edit when found)

Minimal structural damage? Are you kidding?
The structural damage was more responsible for the collapse than the fires. Take a knife and slice it through a house/tower of cards and see what happens.



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.

You think the missile theories are better?
Or the demolition theory?
First, in order for a successful demolition, the explosives HAVE to be PERFECT. Or it will not work at all. You're telling me huge passenger jets slamming into the building somehow missed these explosives?
Second and more importantly, explosives wouldn't even be placed that high! In order to bring down a building like the towers you would go from the ground up in a series of explosions. You're telling me the millions of people watching live on television somehow missed those explosions? You're telling me that even though thousands of cameras saw the collapse start from where the planes went it, it really started from the bottom?
Third, you're telling me that tons of explosives were placed in the WTC and went unnoticed?? Do you realize how many walls you would have to knock out to do all that? No one noticed that?




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

What are you talking about? On that site linked above (and another link I linked in another thread) you will see that fires started on the top floors. There aren't any pics that I know of showing the fires on the top floors, but everyone in the area who was able to see, saw them. This is the best pic I could find, showing clear burn marks on the upper levels (note: this is not the heavily damaged southside)


Most of the pictures you see show later on with the fires on the bottom floors:



Oh there's so much more I could go over, but I don't even know why I waste my time. You all aren't going to change your minds anyway.
Look, no one is saying the government is perfect or the government doesn't cover up stuff. But when the government is covering up stuff....you know it. With 9/11, I'm sure there's alot of stuff that hasn't been revealed yet, but some huge government coverup conspiricy? Highly unlikely.
You all make think only the US government is out to kill you but I'm sorry to say, there really are terrorists out there whether you want to believe that or not.
Did they recieve help from here in the US? Sure. Most of it from unknowing people. Before getting on the planes some of the hijackers failed the metal detectors a few times but were still let through. Learning to fly and not land at the flight schools should have been reported.
Want to blame the government? Go ahead. We shouldn't have had such a nonchalont, "nah, they'd never do that" attitude. But trying to create conspiricies where there is none? Come on...



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird


WALTER: The building is brought down by explosives. Clearly if you look at Larry Silverstein in a movie he claims he told the fire department of the city of New York to pull the building.

1. The fire department would not have been responsible for demolishing the building. So why would Larry ask them too?

2. Has it even been proven yet that someone told someone to pull the building? Does anyone have audio of that?
Also, did they say it as in "do it" or as it "it needs to be done"? Because of the way the towers fell (causing a lot of debris to overspread the building 7 area), and because of all the damage to it's southward face as well as the fires, 7 was going to have to be demolished anyway.



www.whatreallyhappened.com...

This stems from the post here.. Incase people are wondering wtf is going on wit what Silverstein stated...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

For the record he stated PULL IT... Not Pull OUT, Pull this Pull that.. he stated in clear English PULL IT..

I am one of those people who dont believe anything they read and less than half of what you see...

Remember whats the best way to hide damning evidence???

In Plane Site..



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Chapter 5 - WTC Seven - The WTC Report
5.1 Introduction

World Trade Center Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties due to this collapse. The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. On the contrary, it appears the collapse was due primarily due to a controlled demolition. Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings. Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire.

On September 11, WTC 7 collapsed totally. It is suggested below that this collapse was exclusively due to fire. No significant evidence is offered to back up this suggestion (after all it is only a suggestion). It should be emphasized that WTC 7 was neither hit by an aircraft nor by significant quantities of debris from the collapse of the twin towers. It is also widely claimed that WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed mainly due to fire. I emphasize, that before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire.

[...]

A Video of the collapse of WTC 7
Another video of the collapse of WTC 7
And another video of the collapse of WTC 7
And yet another video of the collapse of WTC 7
A larger (1.3 MB) version of the below animated-gif

[...]

Notice, that all of the many videos of the collapse of World Trade Center Seven have been taken from the north. Many cameras were "accidently" trained on the building to capture its collapse (just like a camera was "accidently" available to capture the first planes impact with the North Tower). Also note that the raging fires of WTC 7 are for some reason not visible in these videos taken from the north. Apparently, only the southern side of WTC 7 was a blazing inferno. Yes, they really expect you to believe that only one half of the building burnt, and that this half burnt so furiously, that the whole building collapsed. How is it that there are no videos of the collapse from the southern side? How is it that there are no videos or photographs of the raging fires (that curiously only burnt on the southern side) of the building? Of course, the simplest answer is that there was no raging fire and that you are being lied to.



Does this really look like a fire brought the building down.

5.9 References:

Davidowitz, David (Consolidated Edison). 2002. Personal communication on the continuity of power to WTC 7. April.

Flack and Kurtz, Inc. 2002. Oral communication providing engineering explanation of the emergency generators and related diesel oil tanks and distribution systems. April.

Lombardi, Francis J. (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey). 2002. Letter concerning WTC 7 fireproofing. April 25.

Odermatt, John T. (New York City Office of Emergency Management). 2002. Letter regarding OEM tanks at WTC 7.

Rommel, Jennifer (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2002. Oral communication regarding a November 12, 2001, letter about diesel oil recovery and spillage. April.

Salvarinas, John J. 1986. "Seven World Trade Center, New York, Fabrication and Construction Aspects," Canadian Structural Engineering Conference.

Silverstein Properties. 2002. Annotated floor plans and riser diagrams of the emergency generators and related diesel oil tanks and distribution systems. March.


This site goes into great detail on all buildings that were damaged and all structural damage.



Can a fire really destroy all them support columns??


The evidence DEF. points in the direction of demolition, regardless what silverstein said.

[edit on 21/6/05 by Hunting Veritas]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
There's one thing I would agree with ThatsJustWeird on. No one here is going to change their minds.

If you believe there's a conspiracy, you're going to connect dots and say "ok that proves the Government was behind it" Because you want to prove your idea that there's a conspiracy.

If you don't believe there's a conspiracy, you're going to disconnect dots and say "that doesn't prove anything" and come up with something to try to disprove it. Because you want to disprove the idea of a conspiracy.

It works both ways no matter what side of the coin you're on, there are some very strange things that happened on 9/11 and in my opinion, many other events like OKC bombing and the JFK assassination that would make a lot of people question these things. It's easy to say "this person believes there's a conspiracy, he must be a nutcase" when you can't group people like that it's almost as ignorant as racial discrimination. Many people who believe in these theories are just normal people. I'm 23 years old with a girlfriend who enjoys doing other things like play video games, read a good (non-conspiracy) book over thinking about conspiracies all day, believe it or not.

On the other hand, there are the people out there that don't believe the Government would ever do bad things to it's people. They don't believe the JFK assassination was a conspiracy. They surely do not believe anybody but Al Queda put anthrax in mail letters, and 9/11 was caused by those 19 passengers.

There's probably no solution to this, except as a believer IN the conspiracy, I would hope the ones arguing with me ARE right. I don't WANT my Government to be against me, like you may assume. I don't WANT to be lied to and I don't WANT my civil liberties taken away. But I'm a dot connector I believe I am being lied to, I believe my civil liberties are being taken away by acts like the Patriot Act. I don't just accept everything that I see on the news, I don't accept bizarre one in a million coincidences. I cannot ignore that people within the Government are blowing the whistle on the corruption. I refuse to.

There's no right or wrong on either side of the coin I'm sorry. Neither have been proven one way or the other. No one here can disprove the Government did NOT carry out 9/11. They can only try to take information given that they did and attempt to disprove. Apparently there's no way to prove it either.

I guess the only thing that can prove one side or the other right is time. But as I said before I hope things stay the same instead of change, but I feel a big change is coming. If all of this IS true, let's just please work together before it's too late.





[edit on 21-6-2005 by NoJustice]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJustice
If you believe there's a conspiracy, you're going to connect dots and say "ok that proves the Government was behind it" Because you want to prove your idea that there's a conspiracy.

If you don't believe there's a conspiracy, you're going to disconnect dots and say "that doesn't prove anything" and come up with something to try to disprove it. Becuase you want to disprove the idea of a conspiracy.


What I witness far more often then not is, while dots (per scenario) may be dis-credited to a point they have to come out of the equation, the rest of the dots are still in tact and do correlate without the now missing dots, and still give raise to a probable conspiracy.

On the other hand, to totally disprove a theory, ALL dots have to be dismanlted and rendered uncorrelateable. This would almost seem to not happen, as if there are no dots to start with, a conspiracy theorist would not have them to start any correlation (ie: there is no conspiracy that the WTC did in fact fall, both sides saw it happen).

Damn I hope that came out right, heh
Misfit



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:13 AM
link   
the reason no one can "prove" the WTC incident either way is because the US GOVT Took all the Evidence and Got Rid of it!!!!

um....that sure makes me suspicious

its just like with ufos

we cant prove UFOs real because the US GOVT wont let us moniter their Radars ... duh



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
But when the government is covering up stuff....you know it.



As someone stated previously, this is a matter of faith now, and it seems that no amount of 'evidence' presented by either side is going to sway the opposition.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:49 AM
link   
First of all, the WTC buildings were designed to withstand a 707 crash. The only thing even remotely close to being similar to a 767 is later model 707s carried 23,000 gallons of fuel and the 767 carries almost 24,000 gallons. The 767 is an all around bigger airplane, that flies faster, which gives a much larger kinetic impact.

Secondly, comparing the Empire State Building crash in the 40s to the WTC attacks is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. You're talking about an airplane about a third the size of a 767, moving at 2-300 mph as compared to 500+ the 767 is capable of, a TOTALLY different style of construction in the building......

Third, the outer walls were a large portion of the support for the WTC buildings, they were severly compromised by the impact of the planes. Parts of the planes exited the building on the other side from the impact.

Fourth, jet fuel burns at 2000+ degrees. Jet A-1 has an anti-ice additive (read alcohol) that causes it to burn hotter and faster than military grade fuel. Steel loses up to 40% of tensile strength at 1500 degrees, and at 3000 degrees retains approximately 10% of it's strength. The impact of the plane would in all likelihood have knocked out the sprinkler system, by cutting the water lines running through the building. Several engineers have stated that the impact could and probably did knock some of the fire-proofing off the pillars, which would allow the fire to burn the steel. As far as no steel building being taken down by fire, until 9/11 there was never a situation like this, with a building designed like this. The fire wouldn't have had to burn for long for the steel to being to warp, and twist. Once it started to twist, even if the fire went out the damage would have been done already. If the outside walls had not suffered as much damage as they had, then MAYBE the building could have stood longer, however with the outer loadbearing walls being compromised, the sprinklers being compromised, and the temperature of the fire, the building didn't stand a chance. There was no reason for them to try to demolish them, as they couldn't have stood very long anyway with all those conditions being met.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
First of all, the WTC buildings were designed to withstand a 707 crash. The only thing even remotely close to being similar to a 767 is later model 707s carried 23,000 gallons of fuel and the 767 carries almost 24,000 gallons. The 767 is an all around bigger airplane, that flies faster, which gives a much larger kinetic impact.


Yes a much larger kenetic impact but......we are talking about building 7.


Secondly, comparing the Empire State Building crash in the 40s to the WTC attacks is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. You're talking about an airplane about a third the size of a 767, moving at 2-300 mph as compared to 500+ the 767 is capable of, a TOTALLY different style of construction in the building......


It might be absurd but then again so is the official FEMA story of 9/11



Third, the outer walls were a large portion of the support for the WTC buildings, they were severly compromised by the impact of the planes. Parts of the planes exited the building on the other side from the impact.


yep and so did most of the fuel and ALOT of debris. In all actuallity the MAIN support structure was built from the middle outwards not the other way.....With steel reinforced by concrete to PROTECT it from fire ESPECIALLY the centre.


Fourth, jet fuel burns at 2000+ degrees. Jet A-1 has an anti-ice additive (read alcohol) that causes it to burn hotter and faster than military grade fuel.


Yep burn hotter and faster soooooo there would have to be ALOT of fuel to do that much damage and on top of that most of the fuel was destroyed upon impact and being blasted out the other side......



There was no reason for them to try to demolish them


They had more reason than you think........................................

911research.wtc7.net...

Do some research into 9/11 and find out how fire brought down WTC7 not 1, not 2, not 3, 4, 5, 6 BUT 7........We are told that 7 fell because of fire.........NO PLANE OR DEBRIS HIT WTC7.........So how can a fire get started in the first place...............Then how can that fire on 1 or 2 floors completly demolish WTC7.

YOU ARE BEING LIED TO!!! WAKE UP!

peace



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Did you see the pictures of 7 showing a pretty good bit of damage to the building? I just googled pics of the building and there's at least one showing a large amount of damage to the corner of the building around the 18th floor (according to the caption)



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Did you see the pictures of 7 showing a pretty good bit of damage to the building? I just googled pics of the building and there's at least one showing a large amount of damage to the corner of the building around the 18th floor (according to the caption)


Could you please link to that site. Thanks.....


Google search of WTC7

EVERY link, without typing anything other than "WTC 7" in google comes up with nothing other than WTC 7 was demolished.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJustice
There's probably no solution to this, except as a believer IN the conspiracy, I would hope the ones arguing with me ARE right. I don't WANT my Government to be against me, like you may assume.

Why do you people automatically assume there's a conspiricy when something big happens (especially when there's no hard evidence to back that claim)? Is the government so god-like that they're involved with every big thing that happens?
And I'm not completely convinced people who automatically assume conspiricy don't want the Gov to be against them. It gives them, I don't know, some feeling of importance I guess.


I don't WANT to be lied to and I don't WANT my civil liberties taken away. But I'm a dot connector I believe I am being lied to, I believe my civil liberties are being taken away by acts like the Patriot Act.

Sorry to inform you but you've been lied to or not told the whole truth since...the 1600s. You think that's ever going to change?

Hmmm.....what legal activity can't you do now that you could do before 9/11?
Also, if you were in charge of a country and your country just had the largest terror attack in it's history, what would you do to make sure nothing like that happened again?


There's no right or wrong on either side of the coin I'm sorry. Neither have been proven one way or the other. No one here can disprove the Government did NOT carry out 9/11. They can only try to take information given that they did and attempt to disprove.

It's not a matter of this side disproving, it's a matter of the other side proving the government was fully responsible.
There's no evidence that missile pods were somehow placed on the planes. There's no evidence that explosives were secretly put in place in a unhumanly possible amount of time. There's no evidence a missile grew in size then grew wings and flew into the Pentagon. There's no evidence that the government would hire people to hijack planes fly them off in the distance somewhere, then have missiles and explosives crash into the buildings, that wouldn't make sense. There's not much evidence to show that anything that's happen since 9/11 wouldn't have been possible without killing 3000 people. There's no evidence that officials were faking when they said all the stuff the said with no press or anyone around (see my last post here for an example). The burden falls on you all to prove all that.


If all of this IS true, let's just please work together before it's too late.

Sure work together to find the truth, instead of coming to conclusions without looking at all the evidence closely



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   

TheTruthSeeker.co.uk

MER has never before published this story, this 'conspiracy theory' if you will. Though under much pressure over the years to do so we always held back and never published anything about this 'possibility'...until today that is. But now the fact that a ranking former Bush Administration official, in fact the man who was the top government economist in the Labor Department on 11 September 2001, has now gone public saying 9/11 may have been a historic hoax and the World Trade Towers were 'most likely' destroyed by a 'controlled demolition', causes us to reconsider.

[...]

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."


This is a former Bush administration chief economist and also served as Director at the Criminal Justice centre at the national center for policy analysis in dallas and is now a professor at Texas A&M university.

Why would this guy lie?? Maybe because he isn't and perhaps 9/11 WAS an inside job.

[edit on 22/6/05 by Hunting Veritas]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
i wonder about in the heated moment they did do this because the fact the buildings may fall sideways and kill more people.there must of been some concern of the 2 buildings falling sideways. somebody must of looked at that problem.when it comes to large amount of deaths they always cut there loses meaning all those poor people in those buildings.it is possible and not uncommon for this to happen when a event happens.they may not want to say it because it would insult the dead and the families also.all i can say is if they did fall sideways many more people would of died.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird It's not a matter of this side disproving, it's a matter of the other side proving the government was fully responsible.


As was stated in this thread before when the Government takes all the evidence and destroys it, it's kind of hard to prove without a shadow of a doubt. But anyway, you're free to your opinion but I still see it differently. We're not going to change each other's mind so why try.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
i believe Morgan Reynolds does not believe the Towers can be destroy by fire. it looks like he has serious doubts as he says wen he has no proof. he just voicing his opinion on how the towers and the building 7 was destroyed. i guess fire cant destroy anithing.
maybe he is right, it has to be bombs and not fire, fire is just a fire that consumes and not destroy
.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def