Fill them up all day Bob. I don't care.

Flat out, I was there in Manhattan right off in the water. I know what I saw.

And by the way, I also don't care what you saw on TV of read on the internet.

Most everyone doesn't know # about that day in NY.

So keep y'all damn mouths shut

I've mentioned this before jethro. Unfortunately numerous "theories" have been written up by people solely based on assumptions of their own. It appears that the term "eyewitness" no longer matters. People who were 1,000 miles away write about how popping noises were heard... I always found that interesting considering how they just say "oh people said they heard that". People simply do not want to accept what happened that day and would rather come up with ANY other scenario. It bothers people to accept the fact that there are people who wish every American would die miserably. It bothers people to accept the fact that there are people who tried to accomplish that goal. It makes them happy to assume that it's just the work of some men in suits in our own country. Proof is not necessary.

You want truth about the "coverup"? Here it is. In the days following the attack the scene was considered a rescue effort. Things were carefully NOT moved away by trucks and cranes because there was the hope that they'd find someone under rubble who could be removed alive and we didn't want any living victims crushed by construction vehicles.
After a rational time period had passed it was changed to a recovery effort. Do you comprehend the difference? The recovery effort is more of an "assess the damage, start the cleanup, start to rebuild" kind of idea. Why were things carted out fast? Because this is Manhattan and no one will have a stinking, burning, rotting, pile of steel rubble sitting around for months while conspiracy theorists go through rocks with a magnifying glass. You don't like the explanation? Too bad. It's not your city. This city was ripped to #ing pieces and why should things be left as is until every tom dick and harry around the world is satisfied. The purpose was to remove the graveyard and let the already wounded people of New York heal.

As Jethro said, it's easy to spout off bull# when you weren't there. Anyone posting here more than a few weeks knows my background in the situation and, quite frankly, it pisses me off to read theories like this one written by unqualified fools who have no evidence that their fairy tales are true. I know what noises there were. I heard the creaks from 1 and 2. These fools didn't. What I heard was what I said here ages ago, stressed beams and infrastructure struggling to stay standing under conditions they could not withstand. There were no hidden bombs, it was not a controlled demolition. From where I stood the tops of the buildings looked VERY much in danger of falling crookedly. People were screaming about that too. What if the buildings hit other buildings on the way down? Does a controlled demo look like that? Have you ever seen one in person or heard it? I have. VERY different sounds and look.

I know this is a conspiracy oriented website and I support the seeking of truth. I am disturbed by the fact that sometimes this "seeking of truth" ends up bypassing truth altogether.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Fill them up all day Bob. I don't care.

Flat out, I was there in Manhattan right off in the water. I know what I saw.

And by the way, I also don't care what you saw on TV of read on the internet.

Most everyone doesn't know # about that day in NY.

So keep y'all damn mouths shut

i'll do as i damn well please with my damn mouth.
you can't stop the wind.

Isnt free speech wonderful!!

Personal opinion...I believe the towers were struck by the planes from opposite sides because the terrorists want to topple one into the other. I don't think they planned on them falling as they did, but they were hoping for major damage.

I also think the thought that the goverment planned it or it was controlled demo...is way off base. I guess a need to assign and place blame. Why not go the next step and take it to God. He didn't stop it either.

free speech is a wonderful thing and i would never tell people not to express the opinions. what i would hope for is that one day people will be able to distinguish between fact and opinion. it's not anyone here's fault for believing stories such as this. it's the fault of the writer for representing what he thinks, and can not prove or come close to proving, as fact. that is wrong. free speech is great, but lying is not.

by the way, im not referring to any member here, im referring to the writers of articles we've been linked to here before.

I really can't believe you guys actuall are enven considering this to be remotely true LOL

I say explosives planted by gov to topple the WTC's is a steaming loaf of bull carp! Obviously the planes nailed the buildings. The infastructure melted from the fires that resulted and the floors collapsed on each other. The weight of one floor brought down the next. Sad but true
!

[Edited on 22-1-2004 by dreamrebel]

Everybody ignores the involvement in this disaster of the new owners of the buildings.

I believe he went along witht his plan because the old towers needed a lot of money for renovation and he was locked into leases with low rates. So his incentive was money, how to make more over the term of the lease that he obtained.

It makes sense that they would put explosives into the building, surprised that this is the first time anyone brought this too light.

Originally posted by THENEO
Everybody ignores the involvement in this disaster of the new owners of the buildings.

I believe he went along witht his plan because the old towers needed a lot of money for renovation and he was locked into leases with low rates. So his incentive was money, how to make more over the term of the lease that he obtained.

It makes sense that they would put explosives into the building, surprised that this is the first time anyone brought this too light.

asbestos laden. not up to fire code. obsolete white elephants.

as to the fire melting the steel, ...HAHAHAHA!!! hilarious!
see all the black smoke? the initial explosion?
here's a clue.
1. fuel is a liquid(rabidly spreads and finds its way down).
2. most burned in the initial fireball.
3. black smoke indicates inefficient burning.
4. the official story is swiss cheese.
5. if you tow the mainstream media line, you are either a clueless dupe or an agent of the new world order.
6. free speech IS wonderful. you disagree? the people who are doing serious research into the physics of this tragedy are doing serious research, and should not be waved away because of emotional attachment to an external 'bad guy'. y'all are scared witless to think it COULD be a conspiracy, so your automatic turtling mechanism kicks in.
freedom is the word that keeps getting spewed as the thing in need of protection, while the same spewers are rabidly removing freedom. 'freedom fries' should be read with the understanding that 'fries' is a verb.

some of the biggest problems with the whole hoodwink is:
this was the biggest #ing crime in u.s. history! where's the investigation? where's the steel? where's the proof that it was bin laden(aka tim osman, cia operative).
how come the 'hijackers' are STILL ALIVE!
WAKE UP!!!!!

If any of this is true, and it was all planned out, I would think it would be part of a larger plan. I believe that this all the precursor to the rise of the antichrist. He will come during a time of great adversity, and seemingly unite the world. This could just be a small step towards a world war or other large scale conflict. After all, Money is slowly being changed to one currency (most of Euorope with thr Euro), and more talks of micro chipping people (UTU me, I'll explain) It doesn't hurt to look at things at a global scale...

3. black smoke indicates inefficient burning.

Nothing personal but have you ever seen a fire?

I've sadly seen plenty of them. What color smoke were you expecting? White steam? The smoke that spewed out of the buildings from impact to collapse were very clearly black.

I really have no interest in changing people's opinions on what happened. You're entitled to yours just as much as I'm entitled to mine. If it makes you happy to believe that no one bears any ill will towards the US and that we're just all trying to kill each other and blame poor defenseless men like osama and co. fine. Your choice.
I really wish people would preface such writing by admitting that it's their opinion though. Too many impressionable minds read these things and believe them. A tiny bit of journalistic responsibility and accountability would be nice.

I notice no one seems to have any gripes about the "cleanup being fast in order to cover something up" after i explained that the # sat there for three days still smoldering to check for survivors. Sucks when mommy tells you santa isn't real doesn't it.

Personally I dont believe the crap about fires weakining the structures, and I sure dont believe the official stories, to much coverup to fast. I believe explosives were planted and it was a controlled demolition, however no one here, whether in the city that day or 1,000 miles away can prove one way or another what really happened and until the time its proven one way or another we all just have to live with our own opinions of what happened, and unfortunately we may never know the truth.

Oh by the way I dont believe explosives were put in when the buildings were built, that just dont seem logical or safe to be there all those years. They were set when it came time for the dirty deed.

[Edited on 23-1-2004 by tracer]

Originally posted by Djarums
I've mentioned this before jethro. Unfortunately numerous "theories" have been written up by people solely based on assumptions of their own. It appears that the term "eyewitness" no longer matters. People who were 1,000 miles away write about how popping noises were heard... I always found that interesting considering how they just say "oh people said they heard that". People simply do not want to accept what happened that day and would rather come up with ANY other scenario. It bothers people to accept the fact that there are people who wish every American would die miserably. It bothers people to accept the fact that there are people who tried to accomplish that goal. It makes them happy to assume that it's just the work of some men in suits in our own country. Proof is not necessary.

You want truth about the "coverup"? Here it is. In the days following the attack the scene was considered a rescue effort. Things were carefully NOT moved away by trucks and cranes because there was the hope that they'd find someone under rubble who could be removed alive and we didn't want any living victims crushed by construction vehicles.
After a rational time period had passed it was changed to a recovery effort. Do you comprehend the difference? The recovery effort is more of an "assess the damage, start the cleanup, start to rebuild" kind of idea. Why were things carted out fast? Because this is Manhattan and no one will have a stinking, burning, rotting, pile of steel rubble sitting around for months while conspiracy theorists go through rocks with a magnifying glass. You don't like the explanation? Too bad. It's not your city. This city was ripped to #ing pieces and why should things be left as is until every tom dick and harry around the world is satisfied. The purpose was to remove the graveyard and let the already wounded people of New York heal.

As Jethro said, it's easy to spout off bull# when you weren't there. Anyone posting here more than a few weeks knows my background in the situation and, quite frankly, it pisses me off to read theories like this one written by unqualified fools who have no evidence that their fairy tales are true. I know what noises there were. I heard the creaks from 1 and 2. These fools didn't. What I heard was what I said here ages ago, stressed beams and infrastructure struggling to stay standing under conditions they could not withstand. There were no hidden bombs, it was not a controlled demolition. From where I stood the tops of the buildings looked VERY much in danger of falling crookedly. People were screaming about that too. What if the buildings hit other buildings on the way down? Does a controlled demo look like that? Have you ever seen one in person or heard it? I have. VERY different sounds and look.

I know this is a conspiracy oriented website and I support the seeking of truth. I am disturbed by the fact that sometimes this "seeking of truth" ends up bypassing truth altogether.

Star, perfect answer. Respect.

I believe explosives were planted and it was a controlled demolition, however no one here, whether in the city that day or 1,000 miles away can prove one way or another what really happened

Just wondering... do you then feel that the 2 airplanes were not involved at all?

Oh by the way I dont believe explosives were put in when the buildings were built

I'm glad people are seeing the absolute impossibility of that situation.

When you build a car you dont build an emergency mechanism for self-destruction
when you build a boat it isnt wired with explosives 'in case'...
so why buildings

Out of the Loop
I am the World Trade Center

Product Details

* Audio CD (July 17, 2001)
* Original Release Date: July 17, 2001
* Number of Discs: 1
* Label: Kindercore Records
* ASIN: B00005LN4Q
* Average Customer Review: 3.71 out of 5 stars Based on 7 reviews. Write a review.
* Amazon.com Sales Rank: 70,306

Track Listings
1. Metro [Brooklyn Mix]
2. Me to Be
3. Sounds So Crazy
4. Look Around You
5. Light Delay
6. Inside Your Head
7. Holland Tunnel
8. Flute Loops
9. Aurora Borealis
10. You Don't Even Know Her
11. September
12. Move On
13. Analogous
14. Metro [Athens Mix]

........track eleven-'september'

Originally posted by Djarums

3. black smoke indicates inefficient burning.

Nothing personal but have you ever seen a fire?

I've sadly seen plenty of them. What color smoke were you expecting? White steam? The smoke that spewed out of the buildings from impact to collapse were very clearly black.

I notice no one seems to have any gripes about the "cleanup being fast in order to cover something up" after i explained that the # sat there for three days still smoldering to check for survivors. Sucks when mommy tells you santa isn't real doesn't it.

mommy told me satan is very real. yes, i've seen a fire. when high octane fuel burns, there should be liitle smoke. most the exhaust gas should be (not)seen. does smoke come off a gas stove? can you melt steel with an orange flame?
a fire needs two things, fuel and oxygen. just think about it, if santa will let you.