Chief Nigro FDNY, WTC7 Conspiracies "without merit"

lonegunman. no disrespect to the office intended.
once again, it is the chief that i am implicating. ONLY the chief.
i work with firemen, and i know what they are like. live hard, play hard, die hard, and do it with a heart of gold. i have the utmost respect for them. they have one of the few occupations that i can truly say that about.

it is easy for me to throw accusations around on the web.
however, i don't do it easily. ever since i first saw silverstien's infamous quote spew from his corrupt lips, i have suspected that the fire chief was cozy with silverstien.

silverstien decides there has been a terrible loss of life, and so "they"(whomever the chief is representing in this context) decided to pull it.

anyway you look at it, it doesn't llok good.
either the firechief phoned silverstien for his opinion on pulling a firefighting operation(because, he GAVE his advice, and that would be out of line for someone who is merrely being informed), or alternatively, the fire chief phoned to recieve not advice, but INSTRUCTIONS.

a cabal this nefarious cannot be pulled off without the buy-in of the key controllers of communication nodes(or pyramid caps). that's giuliani, kerik, pataki, nigro, cheney, rumsfeld, g. bush, m. bush, and with those decision makers in place(with a few dozen other pyramid caps), they could direct the chaos like a well oiled machine.

the fact that the fire chief is saying there is "no merit" to the theories of wtc7's collapse just shows he is trying to cover his tracks.

much like the blanchard report on the reasons that 1 & 2 weren't demos(i notice he didn't touch seven, and NIST's report, and NIST hasn't come up with ANYTHING on seven, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T). the blanchard report states 95% of the debris from the twin towers was outside their footprints, whereas demos keep everything in the footprint(like tower seven), BUT!!, the official story as to how the collapse propogated is that the falling mass increased and accelerated.

how can something that is not there do what is was supposed to have done?

all lies fall apart eventually.

i'll look into this nigro guy first chance i get, but, as far as i am concerned, his credibilty is on VERY thin ice.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
billybob I always respected you. I dont know about the police they have there own reasons for becoming police.

Thank you for your service.

I became a federal police officier to protect federal workers, some high ranking military and government and some ordinary people.

I would have protected them with my life, even taking a bullet to protect them, no matter who they were.

No hard feelings billybob, I reacted out of emotion...I know where your heart is.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thank you for your service.

No need to thank me, it does make me feel good though.

Thank you for your service some of my best friends are police officers. The police always have my back and I always have the backs of all officers.

I have probably said things here on the board about a very small minority of officers that have abused the power to police but the majority are good brave people. I want my cousins in blue to know that I have the up most respect for all the good officers out there. I would go into any scene to help save you and get you to safety.

The various videos of WTC7 collapsing show a freakishly 'neat' drop, and it looks so much like controlled demolition that it is hard to swallow that it could happen through fire. What we lack is evidence proving the 'story', like videos of buildings collapsing because of fire.

Oh wait, it has never happened before in history, or since.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Thank you for your service some of my best friends are police officers. The police always have my back and I always have the backs of all officers.

I am now a government analyst and supporting our troops in the field every day.

Originally posted by scientist

you may find this hard to believe - but when you refer to the "murder of thousands" as though it were a terrorist (non-US terrorist to be specific) plot, I find that just as offensive, and just as much of a slap in the face of the american public, as you feel when someone says the opposite.

Wow, thats VERY sad. VERY VERY sad. To compare a FACT over a fantasy. Yikes

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Wow, thats VERY sad. VERY VERY sad. To compare a FACT over a fantasy. Yikes

What fact?

I am still waiting for some hard physical evidence to support the official story. We have evidence that the official story is missing or left out a lot of infomration.

The only fantasy i see is the official story.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The only fantasy i see is the official story.

Beat me to it. Let's see these facts, because I'm hard pressed to find them.

Originally posted by Griff
Beat me to it. Let's see these facts, because I'm hard pressed to find them.

6 years and still no hard evidence to support the official story.

6 years and NIST can still not tell us how building 7 collapsed.

reply to post by ULTIMA1



Lack of evidence does NOT prove a conspiracy theory. Where are your facts? oh wait... you have none.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by ULTIMA1

 

Lack of evidence does NOT prove a conspiracy theory. Where are your facts? oh wait... you have none.

osama bin laden is not wanted by the fbi for having ANY role in 9/11.

so, where's the government's evidence which justifies invading afghanistan?
how about a video of whatever hit the pentagon?
how about NIST telling us how a steel building goes instantly into freefall(WTC7).

like you said, lack of evidence does not prove a conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by billybob




osama bin laden is not wanted by the fbi for having ANY role in 9/11.

so, where's the government's evidence which justifies invading afghanistan?
how about a video of whatever hit the pentagon?
how about NIST telling us how a steel building goes instantly into freefall(WTC7).

like you said, lack of evidence does not prove a conspiracy theory.

OBL is wanted for many crimes by the FBI. The FBI does not have evidence that he orchestrated the 911 attacks. What fact does this support?? Think...if the government wanted to, they could EASILY have him #1 on EVERY most wanted list.

Afghan invasion....The taliban and al queada were resonsible and were dismantled. Again...how does this prove our government attacked us?

What about a video? Look at my post above ...lack of evidence does not PROVE anything. Think about the cameras around the pentagon. Let just assume there was one in the direction of the plane.... what would have been caught on the film. Most CCTV moves at 1 frame per second. The camera would have to be at an angle pointing pretty straight forward to capture anything.

NIST told us WTC fell free fall? On WTC7? If this is true...point it out. I posted a video that show it took close to 18 seconds to collapse. That is FAR from free fall.

the walls of wtc7 fall in 6.6 seconds. that is freefall. regardless of how long it took from the first detectable movement, the walls are falling through themselves as though they were falling through air.

try it at home.

the walls cannot do what they did with gravity as the only energy source.

i can't wait until the official story goes into freefall.


and, regarding afghanistan, the official justification was they were going in to get saddam, oops, i mean, osama. the taliban had nothing to do with 911. "al queda" is supposedly a loose knit organization of 'cells' which are not in contact with each other. that was the whole initial FEAR MONGERING over "el cia duh". they are hard to hunt and kill, cause it's like herding cats.

the taliban even said they would GIVE UP OSAMA, IF the USA could PROVE that he was responsible.

i have no love for the taliban. they were a throwback to the dark ages. but, then, so is america, in many ways(ie. disparate class system, tiered citizenship). however, that is sadly, afghanistan's problem(the taliban).

but, starting wars and killing thousands of innocent babies without ANY evidence is wronger than wrong, and these are our countries(canada, america) that are doing it.



i think i hear your alarm clock ringing. listen to it.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by billybob]

[edit on 27-9-2007 by billybob]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
NIST told us WTC fell free fall? On WTC7? If this is true...point it out. I posted a video that show it took close to 18 seconds to collapse. That is FAR from free fall.

LOL -- not the armchair physicists again!!


"Free fall" is NOT a time. It's an acceleration. It's the force of gravity pulling something down unresisted or through the air.

WTC7 accelerated at almost exactly 9.8m/s^2 on the nose, and I can link you to the article with the video analysis and physical calculations to prove it within a small margin of error of about 1 meter, using NIST's own figures for building height and etc.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Lack of evidence does NOT prove a conspiracy theory. Where are your facts? oh wait... you have none.

Oh i have plenty of facts and evidence. Where would you like me to begin ?

If we went to court the official story would lose becasue there is no hard evidence to support it.

"1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse."

BS, they are the first buildings ever to collapse under fire. wc7 being third. This is a BS report with no math behind it. A more dense plane (b-25) hit empire state in 45 and it did not collapse, the steel in empire state is WEAKER than wtc buildings. Same grade of fuel. Also entire floor caught fire and nothing... They think we are dumb? oh ya... YES!
www.tms.org...

reply to post by 1337cshacker

You can not compare the two strikes. Different planes, with one being ALOT larger and flying ALOT faster. The buildings are also built differently. The B25 essentially flew into a brick. Fuels were different also. The B25 did not carry 62,000 lbs of fuel. That was more than the B25 AND its bomb load. The B25 could not even carry 62,000 lbs of anything.

Originally posted by six
You can not compare the two strikes. Different planes, with one being ALOT larger and flying ALOT faster. The buildings are also built differently. The B25 essentially flew into a brick. Fuels were different also. The B25 did not carry 62,000 lbs of fuel. That was more than the B25 AND its bomb load. The B25 could not even carry 62,000 lbs of anything.

But according to NIST, FEMA and most other reports the builidngs withstood the planes impacts. Which only leaves fires to bring the buildings down.

No fires however severe has ever casued a building to collaspe.

Thier have been buildings with worse fires and worse structural damage then the towers and they did not collaspe.

As for the B-25 high octane gas burns hotter then jet fuel.

Also do not forget the North tower had a fire in 1975 that burned for over 3 hours and caused no damage to the steel, now we are supposed to believe that fires burning less then an hour casued enough steel to wekaen to bring down the towers.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


B25: Max speed: 285 knots @ 15000 ft. Cruising speed 230 knots Max take off weight 35,000 lbs. Bomb load 3200 lbs. Empty weight 19530 lbs. Gross weight 26122 lbs

757: typical cruise speed: Mach .80. Max takeoff weight: 272,500 lbs... well kinda pointless after that. Almost 7x the weight and 300+ mph faster.

Again... two drastically different aircraft and two drastically different buildings. Cant compare apples to oranges.

Originally posted by six
Again... two drastically different aircraft and two drastically different buildings. Cant compare apples to oranges.

Yes the B-25 is smaller then a 767 but the Empire State builidng is smaller then the twin towers. So when you comapre size of the planes to the size of the buildings they are closer.

Also again most reports have stated the towers withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.

1. Most of the fuel was burned off in the intial explosion outside the buildings, causing no structural damage. What was left burned off quickly, accoring to NIST and FEMA reports.

2. The aluminum airframes were shreded as soon as the hit the steel beams.

3. The plane that hit the South tower went in at a angle through the side of the building not causing much damage to the center core.