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.

 

WTC 7 photos. Debunk.

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   
The buildings fell in 10 seconds. They were 110 stories each. No way, "naturally", for that to happen. Nothing more needs to be said.
Arguing is pointless unless you work for those who had a hand in them falling at near the speed of gravity. Yawn.




posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   
bsb: your post i felt was deserving of its own reply.

first off, good job on the concept sound. its plausable. however, i still dont hear it in any of the actual 9-11 footage. nothing stands out at me. even the video you embedded, i didnt hear an initial explosion. just lots of loud noise. so for me its still inconclusive

the video shroom linked was by far the best one, but...just like ufo hoaxes do we have any assurance that someone didnt take a clip of something happening to get the firefighters attention and overdub an explosion to prove a point?

could it have been anything other than a demo block going off?

example.

go to yahoo (or the devil, err google) and type in "bleve"

you will come back with 'boiling liquied expanding vapor explosion'

now, any combustable liquid in a pressurized tank can bleve in a fire. and, it sounds a whole lot more like a demo block going off than if you took the same pressurized tank and strapped a stick of tnt to it.

so i stand by my statements that, now with the exception of the one clip shroom linked for me, there is not one bit of solid evidence for me that there were any demo blocks used on 9-11 in NYC.

but again, dont take my word for it, search for bleve (and this goes for anyone not jsut bsb) and see if you can find some videos (some are pretty cool, but the ones i saw i dotn know if they are online) and i wouldnt expect you to trust anything i linked blindly so ill start you on the path. if you find any vids and still cant admit there are other possible explainations for the 'explosions' heard by so many throughout the day on 911, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.


personally i still lean more towards anoks 'superbushgravityray'



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elijio
The buildings fell in 10 seconds. They were 110 stories each. No way, "naturally", for that to happen. Nothing more needs to be said.
Arguing is pointless unless you work for those who had a hand in them falling at near the speed of gravity. Yawn.


lol thanks that made my day...i havnt been acused of being on the govts payroll in a while. starting to think i was slipping.

btw, can u call them and ask where the hell my checks are? thanks.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
if you find any vids and still cant admit there are other possible explainations for the 'explosions' heard by so many throughout the day on 911, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.


Is there any reason why you would favor other explanations to explosives? Because many of the people that experienced blasts, experienced them first-hand, and there were definitely pressures that came with the sounds that caused considerable damage. Without taking the stance that a lot of people lied or just hallucinated what happened, what would have caused all of that?

In a building like that, really, there aren't that many things that are going to explode (and cause severe structural damage, knock people down stairs, etc.) in this situation, disregarding chance, freak accidents, which I would hold VERY suspect given the events of the day (ie, something randomly blowing up unrelated to the fires and damage, that could have went off any other day).

Transformer explosions should be easy to identify because of the mess they make, fire extinguishers don't explode, chemicals in janitor's closests typically aren't mixed together to form some explosive mixture just ready to be ignited, bursting water pipes don't knock people down flights of stairs, etc., and yet these are the kinds of things people resort to as alternatives to explain all the reported explosions, to avoid having to consider a real McCoy. I just have to wonder what would actually be less likely, rely less on coincidence or missing information or etc., even though the lack of information hurts in any case. And remember that a lot of these reports come from floors that were totally removed from the impacted floors and the fires on them.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

Originally posted by Elijio
The buildings fell in 10 seconds. They were 110 stories each. No way, "naturally", for that to happen. Nothing more needs to be said.
Arguing is pointless unless you work for those who had a hand in them falling at near the speed of gravity. Yawn.


lol thanks that made my day...i havnt been acused of being on the govts payroll in a while. starting to think i was slipping.

btw, can u call them and ask where the hell my checks are? thanks.


The buildings fell in 10 seconds. They were 110 stories each. No way, "naturally", for that to happen. Sense, "apply directly to the forehead". Sense, "apply directly to the forehead". Rinse and repeat.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   


3) free-fall collapse times of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7


One serious flaw with this assertion, IF the towers fell at free-fall speeds....the chunks of the building that fell off when the collapses started, wouldnt have hit the ground several seconds in advance of the rest of the building.



4) photos of steel beams that appear to have been cut


By the workers clearing the wreckage......




7) rush to clear away and dispose of evidence without permitting testing on materials


Rush? It was Memorial Day weekend 2002 before all the wreckage had been removed. And the building performance team DID have all the access they needed to test the steel.



8) immediate blaming of al-Qaeda as perpetrators before any investigation was done


Lets see, we have the flight attendants calling in the names and seat numbers of the hijackers, the FBI and CIA running down their connections.....yes, from the minute they realized it was a terrorist attack they started investigating. Hell I was at work and figured it had to have been Al Qaeda before I had even had a chance to watch TV.



9) fact that FEMA and NIST investigations only covered up until collapses initiated


What is this supposed to mean?



10) lack of reasonable explanation of how concrete was pulverized in WTC1 and WTC2


Define reason. Do you really think concrete is going to survive falling several hundred feet amongst tons of structural steel and NOT get pulverized?




13) Lack of explanation of how upper floors of WTC2 were destroyed once collapse was initiated since the upper section already started it's rotation. I.e., "pancaking" cannot account for destruction of upper block of WTC2


So you think the upper floors of WTC2 are going to fall 800-900 feet and NOT get destroyed??




First, we need to have samples of the steel columns from WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 to analyze. What? They were shipped to India and China and destroyed?


They already were analyzed. And not all of the steel was shipped to India and China, a lot of it stayed right here in the US.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   
posting in reverse order, no offense bsb.

Originally posted by Elijio

The buildings fell in 10 seconds. They were 110 stories each. No way, "naturally", for that to happen. Sense, "apply directly to the forehead". Sense, "apply directly to the forehead". Rinse and repeat.


10? i thought it was 9.6? or was it 12.2? or 14.5? no, wait it was 17...i see all these different numbers presented as "fact" yet theres no consensus, are they all fact?

consistency people, pick a time and stick with it for the love of god!

how can you possibly sit there and tell me to 'get some sense' when youre going off disputed data yourself, yet, i am very comfortable with my knowledge of what i talk about...so ill get some sense when you get some education on the mechanism of destruction you seem to like so much. then you can educate me and ill be so impressed that ill give you a virtual cookie. deal?


@bsb, herein lies the crux. there is no reason i favor a different explaination, yet at the same time i favor ALL OTHER explainations.

even just your last post.

ok...well a lot of the things you list based on other peoples explainations i disagree with too, to a degree. im not avoiding the real mccoy as you put it, i just do not see it. i know how much demo it takes to bring down even small buildings and theres just no way i can look at the collapse of any of the buildings and say 'yup, demo'.

the reason i ask about other explainations is i really want to know if anyone that thinks that the towers were rigged wtih explosives have asked themselves "hmm what else could it be?" BEFORE jumping on the HE bandwagon. i dotn think most have. i am of the opinion that the average person doesnt know one thing more about high explosives than they see on tv. you know..where a pound of c4 could bring down an entire 5 story building. just not possible.

but, back to your post.

IF, as you and others have theorized, it was done top down in a ripple fire fashion, how then could anyone that was injured by a blast, moved by a blast, heard a blast (it did all happen in 10 seconds start to finish right?) saw a blast or felt a blast, be alive to tell about it? we are talking about people from INSIDE the tower yes?

ok so if it was random premature explosions (i said explosions you pervs) how then does that work? does anyone that believes that KNOW how explosives are primed and detonated? (you really arent going to make me retype all the stuff about RC detonators are you?) and PLEASE at least you bsb dont tell me that the explosives were set off from a fire. i EXPECT you to know how wrong that is.

so which is it? the demo guys were absolute gods that could rig a building to fall seamlessly or; they were screwups that let a few random charges go off by mistake?

you cant have it both ways. im sorry, but you cant. priming a shot where all the charges on a floor go off at the same time is the absolute most basic demo 101 lesson there is.

look up what a "ring main" is. again, im not going to guide you to a site cuz i dont want anyone anywhere to say i pointed you to a site that backed me up.

look it up though, i encourage you. (you being anyone who really thinks im just a govt shill)

and why would you blow the basement supports if you are going to just ripple fire from the top down anyway? that makes NO sense whatsoever, requires more ordinance which leaves ONE MORE (or many as the case is) charges to be accidently discovered before hand.

i mean, if anyone wants to convince me, and i doubt anyone really cares waht i think...at least come up with a single plausible theory on how it was done.

i mean mr 'get some sense' obviously has no clue or he'd have offered something to the discussion other than yet another time estimate.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
IF, as you and others have theorized, it was done top down in a ripple fire fashion, how then could anyone that was injured by a blast, moved by a blast, heard a blast (it did all happen in 10 seconds start to finish right?) saw a blast or felt a blast, be alive to tell about it? we are talking about people from INSIDE the tower yes?


Yes, but before the collapses.

Here's a collection of video clips: www.studyof911.com...

For example, one woman says she was walking down the stairs when an explosion blew her into the lobby. There were explosions somewhere around the 23rd floor or so, that I think were reported to either firefighters or the police, and a number of basement explosions. These were all some time before the buildings totally collapsed, or at least long enough for people to make it out.


ok so if it was random premature explosions (i said explosions you pervs) how then does that work? does anyone that believes that KNOW how explosives are primed and detonated? (you really arent going to make me retype all the stuff about RC detonators are you?) and PLEASE at least you bsb dont tell me that the explosives were set off from a fire. i EXPECT you to know how wrong that is.


I don't really think it was random, but that's about all I can say without access to the construction drawings. There were reinforced floors in 1/3rds of the building, where the darker bands were, and I suspect there was pre-collapse explosive activity around those areas in particular and the basement levels.


and why would you blow the basement supports if you are going to just ripple fire from the top down anyway? that makes NO sense whatsoever, requires more ordinance which leaves ONE MORE (or many as the case is) charges to be accidently discovered before hand.


Foundations are usually blown up in demolitions anyway aren't they? Even though the buildings still just fall down to the ground?



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Damocles

I have a few questions for you, I was reading through your posts and they seem very level headed indeed.

The questions I have are:

Why wasn't there a more careful investigation into the use of explosives in either of the towers or bldg 7?
How was it that the gov was so sure that explosives weren't used by Al'Qaeda for example?


What reason do you think there was for so much of the material that day to be 'melted' or 'done away with'?
I mean in the interest of future attacks wouldn't it be almost an insurance policy to look to how future buildings might from the benefit of design, not collapse if something similar occured?
They could learn from the material and build more wisely in the future.


What exactly moved the mass out of the way in order for the building to fall at a high rate of speed? The mass above coming down? Or something else?

Why is there the sound of an explosion just before Bldg 7 collapsed with a prediction?

Why is there what sounds like a bomb before the WTC Tower collapsed,(posted earlier) and here with Bldg 7?
lasvegas.staughton.indypgh.org...

Why are statements like this:

“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--
Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

Only available after the freedom of information act was used by the New York Times?








[edit on 7-2-2007 by talisman]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   


Define reason. Do you really think concrete is going to survive falling several hundred feet amongst tons of structural steel and NOT get pulverized?
Do you think that was the cause of the concrete turning to powder?The concrete dust was reported being 2-3 inches deep and was all over Manhatten.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

One serious flaw with this assertion, IF the towers fell at free-fall speeds....the chunks of the building that fell off when the collapses started, wouldnt have hit the ground several seconds in advance of the rest of the building.


Let's just start with WTC7. Watch the videos. The entire building collapsed in about 6.5 seconds.

Where do you get the idea that chunks hit the ground several seconds before the rest of the building? It's the exact opposite. Videos of the collapse of the towers show free-falling material along side the collapse of the buildings at the same speed as the collapse.



4) photos of steel beams that appear to have been cut

By the workers clearing the wreckage......


No, there is a photo of a standing beam with an angular cut, with molten metal both inside and outside of the beam. This molten metal would not be on the inside of the beam from a worker clearing the wreckage.




7) rush to clear away and dispose of evidence without permitting testing on materials


Rush? It was Memorial Day weekend 2002 before all the wreckage had been removed. And the building performance team DID have all the access they needed to test the steel.


Then why were there no tests done by FEMA or NIST on the actual steel?



Hell I was at work and figured it had to have been Al Qaeda before I had even had a chance to watch TV.


Good for you. You figured out who committed the crime of the century without investigating the evidence just like the government did.

Humor me here for a second... suppose the real culprit behind 9/11 was Iran or Iraq, or even Pakistan, and they planned the entire operation. Isn't it possible that they also could have left behind fake evidence linking the hijackers to al-Qaeda? The point is, just because it was made to look like al-Qaeda doesn't mean it was al-Qaeda. There is still no public evidence linking the accused terrorists to al-Qaeda, other than alleged confessions made by other accused terrorists.



9) fact that FEMA and NIST investigations only covered up until collapses initiated


What is this supposed to mean?


This means that the FEMA and NIST reports only commented on what happened up until the moment the collapse initiated, not what happened to the buildings after the collapse started.



10) lack of reasonable explanation of how concrete was pulverized in WTC1 and WTC2


Define reason. Do you really think concrete is going to survive falling several hundred feet amongst tons of structural steel and NOT get pulverized?


Of course, it happens all the time. The entire upper level of Three Rivers Stadium remained intact after it was imploded. And more importantly, the concrete was pulverized ON THE WAY DOWN, long before it fell several hundred feet.



13) Lack of explanation of how upper floors of WTC2 were destroyed once collapse was initiated since the upper section already started it's rotation. I.e., "pancaking" cannot account for destruction of upper block of WTC2


So you think the upper floors of WTC2 are going to fall 800-900 feet and NOT get destroyed??


The upper block of WTC2 vanished on the way down.




First, we need to have samples of the steel columns from WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 to analyze. What? They were shipped to India and China and destroyed?

They already were analyzed. And not all of the steel was shipped to India and China, a lot of it stayed right here in the US.


Really? And your source for this is...? And the result of the analysis was what exactly?




posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
but ultima, let me ask you a serious question, answer in u2u if you like becuase im not being a smart ass in asking, its a real question. i talk at GREAT lengths about how i dont see the use of explosives in the wtc's on 911 based on my own real life experiences. based on yours, do you see evidence of demo charges? if so, what specifically? ive said in many other threads many times ill admit theres a chance im wrong and im open minded enough to consider valid evidence by experienced people. if youve seen something i missed, id love to discuss it honestly.


I am not saying the government was behind it, i am doing research to find out what really happened gthat day.

Thier is not enough evidence to say that the government was behind 911 but thier is enough evidence to prove the official story is wrong.

Let me give a little background on my education and experience.

1. I was a Crew Chief in the Air Force for 4 years

2. I was a Federal Police officer for 12 years, 9 years as lead in Comm. center with NSA.

3. For the last 9 years i have been a Data Analysist in the Office of Weapons and Space with NSA.

As far as what i believe happened to the towers, from research i have done with government and proffesional research sites i believe the following statement.

"Thier were unconventional high explosives (commercial jet fuel), unconventional delivery (aluminum aircraft, associated metals and oxides) to create high explosive blasts, extreme temperatures from thermite reactions that caused the collapse of the towers."





[edit on 7-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 7-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 02:06 AM
link   
ultima may be my new favorite atser


just thought id throw that out there, but dont worry...i never joined 'bills army' i joined back in the days of george the first when they still asked your orientation. so no worries bout a man love starved stalker ultima


not that theres anythign wrong wtih that...



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
ultima may be my new favorite atser


just thought id throw that out there, but dont worry...i never joined 'bills army' i joined back in the days of george the first when they still asked your orientation. so no worries bout a man love starved stalker ultima


not that theres anythign wrong wtih that...


What is your problem ? you can not come with any information so you have you have to resort to personal insults.

I can provide documents to prove my education and experience, can you ?

[edit on 7-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Last 2 pictures are nothn more than dust.

1st and second are pics from a different building. The fire didn't go up all the way to the top.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
shroomery: first and foremost,before i go into the rest of my post, maybe it would be beneficial for me to really explain to you what i do and dont believe about 911. that way you arent so confused and wont read into my replies so heavily, or at least be able to quote me in proper context.


I understand where you are, if I sound agressive don't think it as a personal attack.


Originally posted by Damocles
read it again, only this time take into context the statements we both made to spur this particular quote. i said the evidence is inconclusive either way and anything beyond that is pure speculation. thats it.


I understand perfectly what you said. But it's not speculation. We're missing fire and damage where there should be fire and damage. No amount of fire on the other side of the building is going to solve that and we already know the extend of the damage on that side. Which was virtually intact compared to 4, 5, 6.


Originally posted by Damocles
no, but a bullet hole would sure help the case wouldnt it?


And we have a bullet hole, you're looking for the gun as you said.


Originally posted by Damocles
ok, sure, but to make the immediate step to it being explosives? you dont find that to be jumping to conclusions at all?


Well usually I never advocate one theory or another, I just try to prove the falsity of the official story. And you are right, it could be brought down by anything as far as I know, just not the fire and damage alone. And the most likely culprit would then be explosives. Especially when there are explosions heard throughout the day. But you're right and I'm open to alternatives besides explosives. But I haven't seen any evidence for those alternatives.


Originally posted by Damocles
but, ill go ahead and ask, what exactly should have been 'in place' on that particular day? what would one have expected to hear? can u deny that at some point on that scene there should have been gas explosions?


No I have no idea what was stored inside the (three) buildings, other than the few gas tanks people talk about. I also know the towers were class A buildings (basically, B for the lack of sprinklers if the janitor is right).
So that would in part mean you don't have a lot of stuff around able to explode in case of a fire right?

But no I'm not denying regular explosions could've occured, I just think it's unlikely that they would happen throughout the day and with the descriptions given. (pop pop pop, flashes, etc..)


Originally posted by Damocles
is it possible, even at all that in the stress of it all when asked in an interview they might have just said 'yeah we heard explosions'? and as to the quotes of firefighters saying they had 'bombs in the building' were each of these guys speaking from first hand knowledge or what they heard from others? did the guys they heard it from know first hand? is it POSSIBLE that in the confusion, maybe not everyone had any idea at all what was really happening?


They might. Like I said I don't like using eyewitnesses and mainly brought them up to show the descrepancies. But besides that, very clear descriptions of the explosions were given by multiple people and even reported on several newsstations. Personally I don't think it's important, to me the collapse of the towers is a shut case because of physical evidence and hard numbers.



Originally posted by Damocles
well if things were 'obvious' we wouldnt be having this discussion now would we? also, explosions all day?

all day?

what kind of crackhead morons did the government hire to righ these buildings? i can only guess thats what you meant, that there were explosions reported all day, because ive never made such a statement that i can recall...so all day? and it took until 5pm for 7 to fall? if i was the govt, id ask for my money back.


You know how they prepare a building right? From what I recall, they weaken the building beforehand. Ofcourse this couldn't be done with the WTC buildings, so perhaps they used explosions throughout the day to weaken them.


Originally posted by Damocles
now THAT is the closest sound ive heard on a 911 video to a HE going off. what do i think it is? without a frame of reference i cant even speculate. it would appear as though its after the twin towers fell and before 7 fell but we have no way of knowing do we? hell that could have been the one that dropped 7 if it was in fact HE. how far away was it? what building was it in? etc...see, to hear a loud bang in nyc on 911 still proves nothing other than that there was a really loud


Ofcourse, I'm not trying to prove anything with them. I just think it's odd for so many explosions to occur when you have a rather small fire.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999



3) free-fall collapse times of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7


One serious flaw with this assertion, IF the towers fell at free-fall speeds....the chunks of the building that fell off when the collapses started, wouldnt have hit the ground several seconds in advance of the rest of the building.


No this is wrong. The speed at which the towers fell is still close to freefall speed. THAT is the problem. Imagine 80 floors each giving 0.2 seconds resistance, that would be an extra 16 seconds for the towers to collapse, and 0.2 seconds is by no means stretching it.


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Rush? It was Memorial Day weekend 2002 before all the wreckage had been removed. And the building performance team DID have all the access they needed to test the steel.


Suuure, everybody else who claims that is just making stuff up, right?



During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, one hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study. 5 One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces! Moreover it is not clear who made the decision to save these particular pieces. It is clear that the volunteer investigators were doing their work at the Fresh Kills dump, not at Ground Zero, so whatever steel they had access to was first picked over by the people running the cleanup operation.




Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.
fe.pennnet.com...





Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.
911research.wtc7.net...




250 tons of scrap stolen from ruins
The pace of the steel's removal was very rapid, even in the first weeks after the attack. By September 29, 130,000 tons of debris -- most of it apparently steel -- had been removed.
www.telegraph.co.uk...



Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


9) fact that FEMA and NIST investigations only covered up until collapses initiated


What is this supposed to mean?


What it means is they never explain the collapse. Only the events untill the collapse. The rest just automatically follows according to them.


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


10) lack of reasonable explanation of how concrete was pulverized in WTC1 and WTC2


Define reason. Do you really think concrete is going to survive falling several hundred feet amongst tons of structural steel and NOT get pulverized?


You're wrong though, it didn't fall several hundred feet then dissapeared into dust. This happend WHILE it was falling. Take a look at the collapse again, do you really think a falling building produces that kind of smoke before it even touches the ground?
And even if it fell to the ground, it doesn't turn everything to dust under it's own weight, concrete slabs would still be recognizable. Especially in the case of WTC 1 and 2, floors would be stacked on top of eachother. Instead, NYC was covered with the dust of the two towers.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Well of course your photo shows nothing, it is from after the cleanup.

Here is a picture taken before that.

i26.photobucket.com...

Notice how much of it is in the street.


Notice how much of the debris from your picture could be debris from WTC 1, or any of the other towers. Didn't WTC1 suppossedly fall onto WTC7? So, I would imagine that a lot of debris would have fallen onto Barclay Street also. You can actually tell the difference in the building materials and alot of it looks from WTC1.

Sorry, but nice try.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Numerous firefighters saw the blaze first hand, and that is consistent with the few photos and videos of WTC 7, that show massive amounts of smoke billowing out.


How is people seeing a building ablaze consistant with photos and video of smoke?


Yet you would ignore all this and call the firefighters liars based on a few pictures of the north side of the building? Are you looking for truth, or ignoring it?


Just for arguements sake. Imagine you were a firefighter there. You see a lot of smoke comming from the building. Would you assume that the building was ablaze and report that to whomever asked you? Even without seeing the blaze itself? I'd say yes, they would. Not lying, but telling it like they (the reporters) want to hear. How else can you explain the lack of proof with their quotes?


You would have us believe that all these people are liars and complicit in mass murder


How are they complicit with mass murder when no one person died in WTC7?


[edit on 2/7/2007 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
Further, how can you possibly expect anybody to come up with hard evidence of a controlled demolition when the government destroyed all the evidence?



Because it is a straw man tactic that he can easily debunk.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join