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 North Side MASSIVE Fires .... CBS News

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Where does it say that the building collapsed from fire and debris? Because if it doesent say that it doesent support the 'official story either'.


PAGE 6

Working Collapse Hypothesis for WTC 7
- An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 ft2




posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


Conclusion:


Status
A Working Collapse Hypothesis has been developed.
The hypothesis is consistent with visual observations.
Comprehensive analysis is ongoing to complete the
remainder of Tasks 1, 2, and 3.


So whenever hypothesis is fact let me know becasue I have a hypothesis of my own...

[edit on 30-6-2008 by jprophet420]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


"working hypothesis" is the term Jprophet. A hypothesis is an educated guess based on evidence.

Care to show me some to back up yours?



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Another thing is.... thermite and other exotic demo compounds don't necessarily explode like conventional "explosives".

I see the gash.... and I've seen the gash ever since the day of... and I understand how you could look at that and go WHOA THERE"S THE REASON! It's a big gash... but if it would have collapsed from the gash if it was deep enough, it would have been an asymmetrical collapse.

Just take the government out of this whole picture... and just ya know for poops and giggles, imagine terrorists had infiltrated lets say an electrical repair crew that worked on wtc7 some time before sept 11th. Would that be easier to believe? because we can deconstruct that story later with other dots we can connect... but the most important thing is getting people to be able to think of the possibility that something happened contradictory to the official story. The most important thing is knowing that the government lies constantly, and it's all hidden behind beaurocratic or national security reasons... but it's intentional.

Questions you should really ask yourself is this:

How sick to your stomach would you get if you knew it was all a lie? How comfortable are you with the way things have been? How big of a wrench would be thrown into your ability to be content with your current situation if all you saw around you was lies? How unsure of yourself and your ability to handle the situation would you be if you knew you had to abandon this way of life?

A lot of 9/11 investigators shy away from these questions. The very fact that they are almost definitely not trying to find an answer that could possibly make their lives up to that point null and void will undoubtedly skew their judgement when they run into an angle of view on the situation that doesn't agree with this mode of living.

People nowadays haven't had to deal with radical changes in this country. We've been sitting relatively fat and comfy since ww2, and everyone could blame Vietnam on Nixon, so it was cool... everyone could settle down and be comfy again without having to think too much about preparing for a time when the "greatest nation on Earth" wouldn't be there anymore.

Things have changed... and now that people see the absolute giant that we seem to be up against, nobody wants to even look at anything that's a big problem... because they wrap themselves up in all their little stuff, and there's just no time, and the subconscious mind makes your conscious mind make radically false misjudgements about what's going on in the world around you... just because THIS is your reality... not that over there.... that over there is bad.... I'm gunna leave that bad stuff over there. You may not be consciously aware of it, but thats's the way denial works. It's not called being in denial because you are consciously aware of it. When you're in denial, you're fully immersed in whatever reality you create for yourself to block out some truth.

This is what we have with WTC7 and the whole opposition to the honest search for truth in this 9/11 debacle. Even most truth seekers don't accept the full manitude of what this all means. Most of the people who disagree with you, funkfastfingers, are in denial about a few things, too...

So, please, let's be civil and not flip out when someone says someone else is in denial. I'm sorry if it offends you, and you will not listen to reason until you are ready. So really this whole forum is pointless, other than to figure out whether you're going crazy or not when the # hits the fan, so to speak.

It's time people wake up, though. 100 years of industrialized and "modern" society.... do we really need to keep the same ideals and fears anymore?

Come on, now. NIST can seriously go # itself for putting people in a state of lull... "Oh goody, NIST says Santa is real, daddy!"


[edit on 30-6-2008 by dunwichwitch]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by dunwichwitch
 


Thank you for your insight Dun.

WTC7, and the video: Who Killed John ONeil got me into 911 CT's. I was a missile believer for a short time at the Pentagon.

I decided to look deeper.

I watched all the truther videos.
I read all the "anomalies"
I watched the collapsed over and over.
I visited so many websites.
I signed up here, LCF. etc.

Then I spoke to reps from FEMA
I spoke with engineers.
I wrote to scientists.
I spoke to victims family members.

I looked for evidence of a conspiracy.

I found the opposite.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
About the gash and the sounds, Craig Bartmer NYPD said:


I walked around it (WTC 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the #'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw...


About the sounds an emergency worker said:


...I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was... well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock.


Download WMV

Earlier explosion at WTC 7




posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by jprophet420
 


"working hypothesis" is the term Jprophet. A hypothesis is an educated guess based on evidence.

Care to show me some to back up yours?


An educated guess is not something that
1. You take $20,000,000 (of our taxpayer dollars) to arrive at.
2. Provides good enough reason to go to war.

I didnt really have a hypothesis, it was implied that the second half of that statement would be something derogatory towards my verbal advasary, thereby implying that it is automatically true by virtue that it is also a hypothesis.

Also, every conspiracy theory is also a working hypothesis. While most of them are also hogwash, the ultimate point that is clear to me is that neither side has a Ph.D authored peer reviewed explanation of what happened. While that leaves the score of CT's Vs. Debunkers 0-0, it also leaves us with no open and shut case either. I wouldnt havea problem with yet another mystery if it werent for the gravity of the situation as a whole.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
ThroatYogurt... what was the one thing that put your mind at ease about all of this?

Why am I asking this?

Because when you saw WTC7, you knew in your gut something was wrong, and it compelled you to look into it further.

I've spoken to engineers before, too. My dad is an engineer. He thinks it was the way it was, but he says the same thing everyone else says, and I don't buy it cuz I look at the videos, and I don't see a reason for the collapse at all. Are the video altered somehow to correct for sideways pitch or removal of big obvious fires?

I've also spoken to structural engineers.... very successful and knowledgeable structural engineers, who say the exact opposite. That guy was from England, though. Maybe he just hates America so much, that he vacations here and talks to guys who think 9/11 wasn't what they said it was. Who knows? But I'd trust him more than I'd trust my dad, only because my dad watches Fox News constantly, and he's American and biased towards the situation.

Someone mentioned that the WTC had a very unique structural framework, and maybe it did... but no building (as of yet...or known to us) is so unique that it can defy the laws of physics as we can define them.

ThroatYogurt.... you shouldn't have let them put your flame out. This is not even about 9/11, in the end. It's about reality.There's so much more.... not NWO and reptilians.... not talking about that.

Reality itself, and what it has been presented as, and the 9/11 rabbithole, starting with WTC7.

I don't let other people dictate my reality, and man you made the mistake of doing that. I'm telling you, it was a mistake. You got too caught up in the proof, the numbers, the science, the everything else except how you personally saw it.

You don't have to know exactly how it happened to know something was horribly wrong with the official version. You don't have to know exactly why to know that the world is #ed up to know that it shouldn't be this way. There is a reason why you got stirred up in the first place. You felt it deep inside you, didn't you?

This isn't about oil or political motivations, at the end of the lie...

It's about your being and your personal power being stolen from you.

Anyone who tells you nothing is wrong with the picture that disturbs you is trying to take your power away, knowingly or unknowingly, because they have given up on knowing themselves. They use what they've learned as a belief to put people back down to their level because they aren't comfortable with what they hear, and they use their percieved knowledge and rank to try to tell you that there's no validity to your thoughts and feelings... and in the end, they are just sock puppets for the official reality that everyone must eat, or they die and supposedly that's the end, "so give us your energy in return for our infinite wisdom and ability."

Logic is based on percieved rationality. Rationality is for robots, and robots are only as rational as their programmers.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by ANOK
 


Anok... This is the Northside of WTC7.... where most truthers claim that there was no damage and or fires. If you watch the videos, there are MANY vehicles on the street that were damaged by fire and or debris.



What's your point of this thread? Are you simply making us aware there was in fact a fire? Or are you implying this fire caused the collapse of WTC 7?

If you don't state your reasoning, leaving it open ended, how can we have a discussion?

Furthermore, since this video and pictures state this is a 'rare' photo of the fire.. maybe THAT is the reason the 'truthers' claim there was no damage... they haven't seen it before.

Nonetheless, no building, made from steel and cement, has imploded due to a fire on one floor. Heck, even homes made from WOOD still have frame members standing after a complete burn through by fire.

Thanks for this new-found, rare information... but again, for what purpose?



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420


An educated guess is not something that
1. You take $20,000,000 (of our taxpayer dollars) to arrive at.
2. Provides good enough reason to go to war.

I didnt really have a hypothesis,.....

Also, every conspiracy theory is also a working hypothesis. While most of them are also hogwash, the ultimate point that is clear to me is that neither side has a Ph.D authored peer reviewed explanation of what happened. While that leaves the score of CT's Vs. Debunkers 0-0, it also leaves us with no open and shut case either. I wouldnt havea problem with yet another mystery if it werent for the gravity of the situation as a whole.


First of all, I do not support the use of our military in Iraq. Let's get that straight. I oppose the war and I oppose the useless handi-tard that sits in the oval office. I have a calander in my office that is counting down the days he has left in office.

So, you don't have a hypothesis per say. I understand that CT's are working hypothesis's; those that think rationally will adapt to the changes in CT's as they are shown appropriate evidence. Those that are somewhat limited in their ability to think for themselves may not. For instance you can agree that the hologram, pod people, space-beamers, etc have been somewhat quiet. I believe this is because most people his the ridiculousness of it.

The CT's that tend to stick around are the LIHOP's. Why? Well they are a lot tougher to debunk. Especially when you have the biggest idiot ever to be SELECTED into office.

In regards to the peer review process. I agree, NIST did not get it peer reviewed. But, they had met with the public, scientists, and other engineers on several occasions prior to releasing the report on the towers collapse. Changes were made. Most of NIST was made up of civilians. Some of the best of the best. Were they perfect? I doubt it.

To suggest the score is 0-0 is not accurate. I posted a link to a paper on page one of this thread that was published in Structure Magazine. How many papers from the truthers have been published? I will try to find some more papers regarding the collapses. I can not be 100% sure that they went through the review process though. (i'll let you know)

In regards to WTC7: I made a promise to Griff that if the report from NIST is not released by December 31st of this year...i go truther!

(kind of like the promise you made Captain Obvious about the DNA at the Pentagon)



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
ThroatYogurt... what was the one thing that put your mind at ease about all of this?


evidence.


Originally posted by dunwichwitch
Why am I asking this?

Because when you saw WTC7, you knew in your gut something was wrong, and it compelled you to look into it further.


Wrong? No. To be honest, I have hated GWB for sometime. I was hoping he was guilty in SOMETHING that happened on 911.


Originally posted by dunwichwitchI've spoken to engineers before, too. My dad is an engineer. He thinks it was the way it was, but he says the same thing everyone else says, and I don't buy it cuz I look at the videos, and I don't see a reason for the collapse at all. Are the video altered somehow to correct for sideways pitch or removal of big obvious fires?


First of all listen to your Dad! You have a PROFESSIONAL engineer telling you the truth. Your Dad has no agenda. But you, (without a degree in engineering or a professional in controlled demolitions) can watch a video and now it WASN'T what "they" say is is?
See where I am going with this?


Originally posted by dunwichwitch
I've also spoken to structural engineers.... very successful and knowledgeable structural engineers, who say the exact opposite. That guy was from England, though. Maybe he just hates America so much, that he vacations here and talks to guys who think 9/11 wasn't what they said it was. Who knows? But I'd trust him more than I'd trust my dad, only because my dad watches Fox News constantly, and he's American and biased towards the situation.


Your kidding right? You trust a man from England.. even though he lied to you? You DIS trust your Dad because he watches FOX news? Dude??? Fox news IS a joke. But WTF?


Originally posted by dunwichwitch
Someone mentioned that the WTC had a very unique structural framework, and maybe it did... but no building (as of yet...or known to us) is so unique that it can defy the laws of physics as we can define them.


Not maybe, this is a fact. (Google it)
Please list the laws that were defied.


Originally posted by dunwichwitch
ThroatYogurt.... you shouldn't have let them put your flame out.


Who is them?


Originally posted by dunwichwitch
Reality itself, and what it has been presented as, and the 9/11 rabbithole, starting with WTC7.


You start and end with WTC7. It is the holy grail of 911 CT's. Without it... there is really nothing left. Think about it.


Originally posted by dunwichwitchI don't let other people dictate my reality, and man you made the mistake of doing that. I'm telling you, it was a mistake. You got too caught up in the proof, the numbers, the science, the everything else except how you personally saw it.

You don't have to know exactly how it happened to know something was horribly wrong with the official version. You don't have to know exactly why to know that the world is #ed up to know that it shouldn't be this way. There is a reason why you got stirred up in the first place. You felt it deep inside you, didn't you?

This isn't about oil or political motivations, at the end of the lie...

It's about your being and your personal power being stolen from you.


WOW, Thats scary.

Re-read what you wrote. Look at the words that I put emphasis on. You will disregard proof and science to come to your OWN reality?




posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by please_takemyrights

What's your point of this thread? Are you simply making us aware there was in fact a fire?


Yes


Originally posted by please_takemyrights
Or are you implying this fire caused the collapse of WTC 7?


Not implying, directly stating. (along with structural damage)


Originally posted by please_takemyrightsIf you don't state your reasoning, leaving it open ended, how can we have a discussion?


If you read the thread you will see that this was in response to some others on another thread stating that WTC7 North side was in PRISTINE condition. (funny how they have not posted on this thread)


Originally posted by please_takemyrightsFurthermore, since this video and pictures state this is a 'rare' photo of the fire.. maybe THAT is the reason the 'truthers' claim there was no damage... they haven't seen it before.


It's been available since 2001.


Originally posted by please_takemyrightsNonetheless, no building, made from steel and cement, has imploded due to a fire on one floor. Heck, even homes made from WOOD still have frame members standing after a complete burn through by fire.


Any of those building have a burning skyscraper rain debris on top if it?


Originally posted by please_takemyrightsThanks for this new-found, rare information... but again, for what purpose?


Your welcome, and to have intellectually stimulating conversations.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

In regards to the peer review process. I agree, NIST did not get it peer reviewed. But, they had met with the public, scientists, and other engineers on several occasions prior to releasing the report on the towers collapse. Changes were made. Most of NIST was made up of civilians. Some of the best of the best. Were they perfect? I doubt it.

To suggest the score is 0-0 is not accurate. I posted a link to a paper on page one of this thread that was published in Structure Magazine. How many papers from the truthers have been published? I will try to find some more papers regarding the collapses. I can not be 100% sure that they went through the review process though. (i'll let you know)

NIST didnt have it peer reviewed because its not finished.
How many have 'the truthers' published? Several. I cant find one thats been peer reviewed tho. I feel pretty confident in my scoring, as i havent been presented with a plausible scenario to several of the mysteries surrounding the story portrayed by the media and or government.


The CT's that tend to stick around are the LIHOP's. Why? Well they are a lot tougher to debunk. Especially when you have the biggest idiot ever to be SELECTED into office.

Well, pearl harbor was a LIHOP operation that we used 8 strategic points to antogonize. Thats been declassified and reclassified. Books have been written on it, I researched it in college and again for ATS, here. That coupled with operation northwoods builds a pretty strong case for LIHOP, while i openly admit that most 'truthers' dont even know or care about this (the ones at ATS as a whole are the best/open minded IMHO, thats why i stay here).

And it's nice to see you dont support the war in Iraq blindly 'on the grounds that CT's are false therefore the OS is true'. Thats been my stance for a long time. At first I came to ATS from one of the first CT flash animations about the pentagon lawn. I was Gung freakin HO that it was a conspiracy from hell. As I posted I found myself getting ripped to shreds left and right. I learned the ins and outs of debunking from some of the best and worst. I came to realize something:

We have the best debunkers (and some of the worst too but I wont get into that) here and even they cant disprove every CT, yet they can disprove most. That means that the Official Story is at the very least hiding something. Just becasue I cant see it doesent mean its not there.

Now thats where my problem lies with this whole thing, we spend what is it now, like 10 billion a month in Iraq? and we spent 20 mil on the whole investigation? so like one five hundedth of what we spend in a month on war we spend on a freaking 7 year investigation. Thats not cool to me.

I thought the supercomputer simulation they did was a step in the right direction. Remember folding? Its something that computer nerds use to test overclocking and stability on their computers. You download a program and everybody connected uses their computer as a single node of a 'giant online supercompter'. Nothing like that, no propper investigation, it all stinks.

Even if there is no conspiracy whatsoever, there is a gross mishandling of 'for the people by the people'. Go out on the streets right now and take a poll. See who wants war and who wants health care. I gaurentee that health care wins by a landslide. Pre-Iraq we were told that there was not enough money to give every person health care. It is obvious now (hindsight is 20/20) that there is enough money for health care, we spend more on war than well being. Thats why i am so adamant about getting to the bottom of this whole mess.

But back to the topic at hand, I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to support that wtc7 collapsed due to fire+structural damage. I also do not believe that the hole in the pentagon was made by an airliner. I also do not believe that it would be possible to hit the most defended building on earth with over an hours notice that multiple acts of terrorism are simultaniously taking place. For the amount we are spending on this war effort, they should be able to prove all of this if there is no CT or cover up.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
luckily for george bush, the demolition contractor that planted the explosives inside WTC7 did not plant them on the floors which were on fire, otherwise they would have been set off, exposing the conspiracy.

it's interesting to me that thousands of people were involved in this huge conspiracy plot in order to go to war in iraq but we couldn't plant a single barrel of WMDs in iraq after all that.

also, let's just say WTC7 was demo'd (which it was not, there isn't a single piece of evidence to support it), you would then have to prove that it wasn't demo'd by al-qaida. but not only do people believe it was a controlled demolition with not a single piece of evidence to support it, they also come to the conclusion that it was done by the govt.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420


But back to the topic at hand, I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to support that wtc7 collapsed due to fire+structural damage.



what credentials and evidence do you have to disprove it? just saying it isn't so lends nothing to your opinion. on the other hand, there is NO evidence of a controlled demolition.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
luckily for george bush, the demolition contractor that planted the explosives inside WTC7 did not plant them on the floors which were on fire, otherwise they would have been set off, exposing the conspiracy.


How many times do we actually have to go through this?

If they were in the fire floors, they would have caught fire. Not exploded. Soldiers in Vietnam used C-4 explosive as fire wood because you need more than just flame to set it off.


And I'm sure they've refined more explosives than just C-4 in the last 30 some years.


it's interesting to me that thousands of people were involved in this huge conspiracy plot in order to go to war in iraq but we couldn't plant a single barrel of WMDs in iraq after all that.


It's interesting to me that it would have to be thousands of people involved if it was. Hmm...planners (5-10) and doers (5-10). How does that add up to thousands?

And before you bring in the first responders, please explain how each one knows what an exotic incendiary device looks like after a building has crushed it.


also, let's just say WTC7 was demo'd (which it was not, there isn't a single piece of evidence to support it), you would then have to prove that it wasn't demo'd by al-qaida. but not only do people believe it was a controlled demolition with not a single piece of evidence to support it, they also come to the conclusion that it was done by the govt.


Depends on what Government you mean.

Ours: Probably not unless it was LIHOP. Plausible deniability.

Question: Do you feel that MOSSAD gives a frack about killing 3,000 Americans to further their own agenda?

MOSSAD's MOTTO: "By Way of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War"

BTW, who signed Sakher Hammad's
WTC Basement Level Pass?


Hammad told federal authorities that he was working on the sprinklers six days before the twin towers were brought down by terrorists, court testimony revealed this week.

But Hicks said the Port Authority, which owned the building, did its own sprinkler work, and that any other work involving sprinklers would have been arranged by an individual tenant.


www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Also: Please read the whole article before you just poo-poo it out of slight of hand...please.






[edit on 7/1/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 




you are wrong because C4 just needs blasting caps and wire. if the wire is set on fire, the C4 (or explosives) would detonate. if it were a controlled demo the explosives would have wire and blasting caps and they would catch on fire.

secondly, doesn't matter how many people it would take in the "conspiracy" to prove my point (although if you think 10 people could pull off flying the planes, planting the explosives, hiding debris, planting passports, etc then that's fine) if they could do this surely they would plant WMDs in iraq too. but i find it appauling that people think there is a scenario in which pilots agreed to leave there familys behind because the administration asked them to commit these acts on their own soil. that every pilot confronted with the idea just said "yes i'll do it". do you realize the ramifications if they had asked a pilot to do this and he said no and went and told the media? impossible scenario.

and lastly, there is no evidence of the amount of explosions that would be needed to bring this building down.

THIS is a demolition. notice that even as the building is falling you hear the explosions. yet there are NO explosions heard when WTC7 falls, before or as it's falling:






[edit on 1-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
you are wrong because C4 just needs blasting caps and wire. if the wire is set on fire, the C4 (or explosives) would detonate.


Does this also include remote controlled detonations? Or chemically initiated detonations?


if it were a controlled demo the explosives would have wire and blasting caps and they would catch on fire.


All HE has to be wired and have blasting caps? What about FAE?


Chemical initiation of detonation in fuel-air explosive clouds


With the invention it is not necessary to utilize secondary charges and hence a more efficient and reliable breaching system is achieved.


www.freepatentsonline.com...


secondly, doesn't matter how many people it would take in the "conspiracy" to prove my point (although if you think 10 people could pull off flying the planes, planting the explosives, hiding debris, planting passports, etc then that's fine) if they could do this surely they would plant WMDs in iraq too.


One thing wrong with your WMD theory. WMDs have signatures. Meaning if we planted them, it would have been obvious that they were ours.

That's how we know the anthranx came from a US lab, BTW.


but i find it appauling that people think there is a scenario in which pilots agreed to leave there familys behind because the administration asked them to commit these acts on their own soil. that every pilot confronted with the idea just said "yes i'll do it".


What pilots are you refering to? I guess you missed where I said that I believe MOSSAD helped. Who said anything about pilots? Certainly not me.

Typical "debunker" putting words in others mouths to set up strawmen.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


regarding demolitions, do any of these types of explosives go off with NO sound? because there are NO sounds of explosives before or as WTC7 falls. typical truther, ignoring that fact.

and all of these would detonate under extreme heat or simply not work anymore, so now you are dealing with explosives that were rendered dead. more reason to suspect the controlled demolition theory.

and i didn't say YOU said there were american pilots.



[edit on 1-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
THIS is a demolition. notice that even as the building is falling you hear the explosions. yet there are NO explosions heard when WTC7 falls, before or as it's falling:


Where you there? Because I've seen plenty of statements from people who were there and they say differently.



new topics




 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join