Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Japanese Have Washington Post Running Scared over 9/11

page: 9
126
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by wolf48184
 

Of course.

It's the players that remain the same.




posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I appreciate the quotes.To simplify my request, WHERE can I find these quotes ? From what I am gathering in my own searches,there was no firefighting efforts going on inside WTC7. I am not disputing that you have access to these quotes, I am only asking where you found them? It is not my intention to have a p-ss-ng contest with you,I am simply trying to formulate an opinion on the collapse of WTC7. Surely,you have no problem with that.I have been focussing most of my attention on the collapse of WTC7,and it appears that maybe you have access to material that I have not perused yet,so all I am doing is requesting that you share those sources with me ? And contrary to the theme in most of your posts, I for one,sincerely hope that it can be proven without a doubt,that it was not an inside job,that no one in our government had foreknowlege of it etc. In a court of law,a person can be convicted of murder even tho there is no body.,even tho they can't be placed at the crime scene.,even tho there are no witnesses who saw him commit the crime.There are people here in the U.S. who are convicted in this manner quite frequently.There are people who are serving time on nothing more than circumstantial evidence.From everything that I am seeing,there is more than ample evidence of this type out there as concerns 9/11.If you or I had this much circumstantial evidence stacked against us in a court of law,do you really believe that an unbiased jury would not sleep well at night,knowing that we were off the streets?Please don't counter with 'what evidence'.The list would be too extensive for me to go all the way back to square-one and start over again.We are both aware of what I am saying.You lie to your friends and I'll lie to mine,but let's don't lie to each other?
I am compiling quite a bit of information on WTC7 that I haven't seen discussed here yet,but it is no overnight task.Once I feel comfortable with it, I will post it.The definition of 'prejudice':an unfavorable opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge.Let's not be prejudiced by our opinions or comfort zones?



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Most of the quotes can be found here:

graphics8.nytimes.com...

I would reccomend reading through the firefighter accounts, as I do not know exactly which ones in the list were at WTC, aside from the ones I mentioned earlier. There may be a few more that were at WTC7, but you would have go through each account, and there are quite a few to read through.

This is Cheif Nigro's response to the WTC7 conspiracies:

This is a message from Chief of Department (ret.) Daniel Nigro, addressing the conspiracy theories surrounding the collapse of WTC7. Thank you very much for this statement, Mr. Nigro. The work you and your colleagues did will never be forgotten.

Release date: September 23, 2007

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

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.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

sites.google.com...

As it stands he says here that he didnt speak with Larry. But LS could have spoke with any of the Chiefs that were on that day at WTC7. That is my opinion.
There are also good pages here I would also like to reccomend to you, it opens in Microsft Word, as a document, so its up to you if you want to open it or not, but there are some excellent points and facts if you truely wish to read and learn about:
www.911myths.com...

Warning there are 109 pages to the document, but it is full of important information.
You will also see the TM and their lies, twists, and innuendos being exposed.

[edit to add]

Upon some further review and investigation, there were indeed firefighting efforts till about 2:30PM in and around WTC7.

The remaining firefighters around WTC7 were official pulled out by 3-3:30PM:

Excerpt: Summary of World Trade Center Building 7 Emergency Response

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.
• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.
• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.
• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for con-ducting operations inside the building.
At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongo-ing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emer-gency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building expe-rienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.


Taken from: NIST NCSTAR 1-8 Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: The Emergency Response Operations

[edit to add]



Even this firefighter can see with his own eyes what is happening to WTC7. They are trained to spot signs of structural failure and impending collapse signs. A burning, leaning, tilting building, with no water thrown on it for nearly 7 hours, its no secret that thing is going down.

[edit on 3/15/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
"A burning, leaning, tilting building, with no water thrown on it for nearly 7 hours

They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for con-ducting operations inside the building.

There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

Upon some further review and investigation, there were indeed firefighting efforts till about 2:30PM in and around WTC7."


Since there was no equipment or water available, what type of apparatus did the firefighters use for these "firefighting efforts"? It seems to me it would be quite dangerous to conduct firefighting efforts without the necessary equipment and water.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Rather than asking me, ask the ones that were there.

There were fire fighters all around WTC7 and the collapse zone, trying to rescue people, looking for survivors, some were even inside WTC7 to check the status of the water mains and see if anythign can be done.

As to what specifically they were doing, I do not know. You can ask Cheif Nigro or any of the chiefs, captains, fire fighters that were there.

Here is one firefighter that was there, read his statements:
Salerno, Anthony
graphics8.nytimes.com...

another:

Captain Michael Currid, the president of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, said that some time after the collapse of the Twin Towers, “Someone from the city's Office of Emergency Management” told him that building 7 was “basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it," after which the firefighters in the building were told to get out (Murphy, Dean E., 2002. September 11: An Oral History. New York: Doubleday pp. 175-76)


another:

We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center. –Captain Anthony Varriale

graphics8.nytimes.com...



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



But it would literally require THOUSANDS of people to be working on trying to pull off something so uber-complicated as faking a terrorist attack.


I do not believe it would take thousands of people to pull off a false flag operation and yes it is my opinion, as it is your opinion that thousands of people had to be involved.


All that preparation would require a substantial amount of people to set it all up.


That has yet to be proven.


This isnt something 10 or 100 people would be able to do, but a few thousand to cover all the aspects required to pull this off.


I disagree, this is your opinion, do you have any evidences to support this claim?


This is what you are supporting when you make the innuendos that our govt is secretly responsible for 9/11, planning it, executing it, etc.


There is enough circumstantial evidences that supports this claim, and how our government has behaved about answering any and all questions about the events of 911 and not to mention the stonewalling of all the investigation in to 911 and the lies the White House and the Pentagon told the 911 commissioners that supports the above statements.


Gross incompetence is far more pervasive than you would think.


I do not doubt for one minutes there was some gross incompetence from some of the departments in our military and government offices in how they handled some of the events of that day.

However, Gross incompetence will not explain why millions of tons of the WTC concrete were blasted into a very fine powder.
In addition, it will not explain why there was molten steel melting in pools and burning under the WTC for weeks after 911. These are the undeniable facts that we cannot ignore. NIST has fail to address these issues, in fact NIST has behaved as if there were no melting of steel, or pools of steel under the WTC rubble, yet there were plenty of firemen who complained about it.



Of course they are going to cover their ass and stonewall and everything to divert the fact that they got caught with their pants don because a few people screwed up BIG TIME due to incompetence, red tape, competition and infighting amongst the intel agencies and security agencies.


I do not doubt some did cover up their mistakes, but I believe it is because the communications was deliberately kept silent between the White House and the Pentagon as evidences certainly supports this.


Your claims of wanting a "new investigation" are suspicious. I have a gut feeling that even if there was a "new investigation" and it turns out that I was right about the negligence and incompetence of the higher ups, and they get punished, you and the TM will not be satisfied.


The American people want a new investigation and we do not want the government doing it because most of us do not trust the government do to their covering up and stonwalling and second it is because it has already been proven they lied to us about some of the inquiries into 911.

There never has been a proper investigation into 911 by the government.


To the TM, they want the truth of what happened to be the govt


No, TM only wants the truth we are not looking to blame anyone we only support the evidences and the facts.

I put together some very important reading materials for you that show something different happened at the WTC 7 other than what our government told us.




WTC 7: A short computation
Kenneth L. Kuttler
Professor of Mathematics
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah 84602
Introduction
I provide a short computation, focused on World Trade Center building 7. Based on very favorable
assumptions for achieving a fast fall, including ignoring resistance due to intact steel columns, I could only get
the building to fall in about 8.3 seconds, whereas the observed roof-fall time is approximately 6.5 seconds.
The problem is the large number of floors and conservation of momentum in a collision. Some of the “official”
explanations about progressive collapse are evocative but they do not explain the difficulty in the rapid fall of
the building along with what is evidently taking place when the video of the falling building is observed.


www.journalof911studies.com...

A&E did the math and NIST phony math doesn’t stand up to conventional mathematics.



Explosives Found in
World Trade Center Dust

Scientists Discover Both Residues
And Unignited Fragments
Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics
In Debris From the Twin Towers

911research.wtc7.net...


Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence
for energetic materials


www.springerlink.com...

This Journal is very scientifically credible, it has been peer- reviewed, and there has been no peer-reviewed paper that refutes these credible findings.




This overview of witness accounts shows that the evacuation of the area surrounding WTC 7 started sometime around 4 PM, and was completed only a few minutes before the 5:20 collapse. The warnings of the collapse, which are recalled in dozens of accounts by emergency responders, show a striking consistency of conviction that the collapse would occur.

Premature Announcements on Television Broadcasts
These premature reports were uncovered in the wake of the publication of URLS of a vast archive of television footage.
The following pages contain partial transcripts of these premature reports.
• BBC premature announcement of WTC 7's collapse
• CNN premature announcement of WTC 7's collapse
Vast Archive of Footage
The premature announcements of the collapse of WTC by television networks went unnoticed until researchers discovered a vast archive of television broadcast footage from the day of the attack. On February 22, 2007, a post on 911Blogger.com listed the URLs on Archive.org of 417 mpeg recordings capturing about 60 hours broadcast coverage starting on the morning of 9/11/01 from each of six different television stations. Each of the high-quality recordings covering about 41 minutes of broadcast.

www.wtc7.net...



WTC 7 Collapse Foreknowledge
Reports of Foreknowledge of the Collapse of Building 7 in the Oral Histories

The oral histories released on August 12, 2005 contain many reports of warnings of the collapse of WTC Building 7 at various times during the day. Most of the warnings were from after about 4 PM.

Joseph Cahill -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
The reason we were given for why we were moving was that 7 World Trade Center was going to collapse or was at risk of collapsing. So we must have been somewhere in this area where we would have had a problem with that. But I honestly don't remember.
...
They wanted us to move the treatment sector because of 7 World Trade Center was imminently to collapse, which, of course, it did.
Interview, 10/15/2001, New York Times


Tiernach Cassidy -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.), Engine 3
Then, like I said, building seven was in eminent collapse. They blew the horns. They said everyone clear the area until we got that last civilian out. We tried to give another quick search while we could, but then they wouldn't let us stay anymore. So we cleared the area. ... So yeah, then we just stayed on Vesey until building seven came down.
Interview, 12/30/2001, New York Times


Pete Castellano -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.), Ladder 149
We were ordered down from the tower ladder because of a possible collapse at Tower 7.
Interview, 12/28/2001, New York Times


Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.), Battalion 13
So we started heading over to where Building 7 was at and they were like Building 7 is going to collapse, you can't go over there, this and that, and there was another building that they thought was going to collapse that was like right behind the triage center, the building that we were in.
Interview, 1/23/2002, New York Times



911research.wtc7.net...

There is enough credible eyewitness reports that went on record to prove there was foreknowledge of WTC7 was going to come down. The fact is there were a few fires in the WTC 7 but not enough to bring the tower down. In fact photo evidences and videos of that day prove the WTC was not engulf in flames on every floor, yet the WTC 7 collapsed in the same manners as the demolitions that was done on some of the old Casino in Las Vegas.

Research: False Flag operations.


False Flag Terrorism


www.wanttoknow.info...



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Thanks for sourcing.I must tell you up front,the YouTube link contains some pretty damning material.A lot of it ,I have seen, some of it I hadn't. I have been trying to stay focussed on WTC7 but that is hard to do at times.Inside of the YouTube link there is a video titled '9/11:Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings'.This video does not help your position on 9/11 even remotely Gen.All of the major networks were reporting explosions going off in the buildings.Firefighters were giving accounts of being 'blown back' by explosions while attempting to enter one of the buildings.Firefighters who were inside gave identical accounts of being 'blown back'. Keep in mind that these were accounts from the 'bottom' of the buildings and outside.,well away from anything that was taking place on the upper floors.This was also before the buildings started to collapse,therefore the 'pancake' theory would be irrelevant to these reports.I probably have more respect for firefighters than I do any other sector of civil servants,so there is no way that I'm going to entertain anyone's notion that these guys are liars or that they weren't intelligent enough to know what they were talking about.Then there was the very damning video with Peter Jennings telling the whole world of how NORAD had been conducting excercises for the two years preceeding the attacks.,excercises that included scenarios of hijacked airliners with the World Trade Center as the focussed TARGET !? Then there was good ol' Condi Rice and Dubya telling the whole world that they had no prior knowledge of any intell suggesting that an attack was coming. This has been proven to be a lie how many times now?And then there was the construction foreman stating how he and his crew were cleaning up and had fourteen (14) floors of debris which had been reduced to a pile only eight (8) feet high.Having plenty of experience and working knowkedge in the construction and demolition fields,none of this makes any sense to me. In fact,I find it ludicrous and an assault on my intelligence that anyone would expect me to believe the OS without further investigation. Your Ball...



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


I have watched that particular video myself, long ago, and after reviewing it, it has not convinced me of anything other than how easy it is through some slick editing, selective eyewitness accounts, and innuendos, one can make it appear that there were "bombs" going off constantly. However, all I ask is for you to watch it with a huge grain of salt, and some common sense. Why do I say that? Just bear with me for a second:

You just had two large 767s impacting two of the tallest buildings on the eastern seaboard. Each floor is at least one acre in area. 10-20+ floors are involved in flames for 45+ minutes. Now, there are numerous things in such a large building that can explode, or sound like explosions. Heck in ALL large fires there will be explosions. Let us look at the most obvious ones. You have large amounts of jetfuel and fumes from jet fuel that has spilled across multiple floors. When the fumes collect in an area and have no where to go, they can explode when touched by an open flame or electrical arcs. You have the oxygen tanks on board the aircraft. You have electrical generators, electrical conduits, high pressure pipes, office equipment, chemicals, batteries (and there were lots of them in the UPS area, aka uninterruptible power supply), that can go boom. What else? You have the toxic and flammable gases from the materials burning which can collect on the ceilings and ignite and explode when heated or touched by open sources of ignition. Its called pyrolysis. They can cause explosions as well.

Now lets look at non-fire sounds of explosions. The WTCs were structurally damaged, and their integrity was failing. Steel was buckling and snapping. Concrete was cracking and breaking from the heat and sheering. Pipes were bursting. Firefighters have mentioned that they heard the building twisting, settling, cracking, and popping, all signs of structural integrity failing. You have elevators whose cables snapped and they free-fall down the shafts, not to mention the motors which would have also broken off and fallen down the shafts. An impact like that would sound an awful lot like an explosion. Ever heard a large dumpster fall off a truck or loading dock? WOW!
What about the reports of floors collapsing prior to the collapse of the towers? I think that floor trusses snapping and failing would sound a lot like an explosion.

The reports of firefighters being knocked around and blown back mostly occurred when the collapse began, forcing the air in the shafts, core, and stairs to come blowing through. But think about it, an explosive creates a concussion wave, or blast wave. It is very powerful and can not only throw people around, but kill. The blasts wouldnt just be winds, and they wont travel down the stairs. They would visible outside. Why werent firefighters killed during the alleged explosions in the core? Controlled demolitions have to happen instantly and in quick sequence, not spread out over 45 minutes. That never happens and is also very dangerous as what can happen is the charges themslevs can go off prematurely or even fail to explode when exposed to fires and impacts.

The basement "explosions" were nothing more than the fireballs that traveled down the shafts and fyi, all shafts on the WTC traversed the whole height of the tower, just not the elevators themselves. See here: www.usatoday.com...
sites.google.com...

Rodriguez's first account made no mention of bombs, just a rumbling sound of the impact.

As for the debris being squashed, you j ust 110 floors go pancaking down, the forces literally SQUASHED the floors down.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Okay, you make some good points.How would you explain the video of the woman clearly standing in the gaping hole where the airliner entered the building?There are no visible fires going on at this location,AND,she is leaning against the structure,which apparently never got hot enough to melt,twist,distort etc.An airliner has just plowed into this section,a huge fireball had erupted and yet,there she is.I have worked with steel long enough to know that there is no way at all that the steel cooled that quickly if it had been at the heart of a massive fire.As for the jet fuel,by all accounts that I have seen,it vaporized in the fireball.And what is your take on the clips showing steel beams that have clearly been cut ?These were not the result of 'melting'.Can we find a timeline of when these pics were taken?Could it be that these pics were taken after the recovery efforts commenced,and these cuts were the result of clearance?I don't know,that's why I am asking.



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Well that is a good question, but I am afraid its a simple answer. The fires have moved on up towards the back of the back of the building and higher up. (in relation to the way we are viewing it.) In some pictures, you can see the flames well behind here and roaring pretty well above and behind her area. There was a stiff breeze at that height, which was lowing right on the face of that area. The wind pushed the flames away from that area, and pushed them deeper inside and towards higher floors. Do not forget, fires like to spread upwards. The wind pushed it away and managed to clear up that particular area of impact. And having it cool enough to be around. Mind you the fires and fireball went into the tower itself, not just on the outside. Most of the heat would have been inside. I'm willing to bet that was taken much later after the impact, right closer towards the collapse. By that time, the combustibles on that area have burned away, and the fire spread towards more "fuel" in the tower.

As for the "cut angled beams" they were done so during cleanup! You can see it here:

The person even points it out during the video!

As yourself this question when looking at that picture of the cut on an angle beam: If it was cut that low, why didnt the tower collapse from the bottom up? Because it wasnt cut prior to collapse, but well afterwards.
A timeline would usually be most helpful, but we can piece it together with what we know and have seen.



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


As for the "cut angled beams" they were done so during cleanup! You can see it here:






No one knows when any of these photos were taken of these cut steel beams, we do not know if they were taken before the clean up operation or during the clean up operation.

If someone has any proof, I would like to see it.

The video you are showing shows the lips moving but no sound coming out of some people mouth, in fact it appears it was dubbed over.

Not to mention the video is very grainy.

Does anyone one else see the same problem that I see in this video?

We have no proof if those steel beams were cut before or afterward.








[edit on 17-3-2010 by impressme]



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


From 1:33 onward, the gentleman points to the cuts they made during the clean up. He even states that they were getting ready to take the last three of the "candelsticks" down, pointing to the three still standing. He points out the previous cuts made just above the bow-tie connection. Those are clearly on an angle, and done during clean up, and clearly seen on an angle, regardless of the grainyness of the video. And these were done during clean up. No problems here.

As for why the lips move first, then sound, it wasnt dubbed over, but more like a problem with the audio/video stream during the making of this particular clip. The voice and lips do match up, but are offset. it happens sometimes and I've seen it happen on yt a lot.



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


From 1:33 onward, the gentleman points to the cuts they made during the clean up. He even states that they were getting ready to take the last three of the "candelsticks" down, pointing to the three still standing.


Perhaps so, however do you have proof that the “cut beams” were not already there before your video was made?

The man in the video said: you can see where he made the cut.

My problem is who is this person?
Who is the man that claims he made the cut?
Why is he so clean?
We do not see anyone cutting anything in this video.
The only thing you have, is a man states he made some cuts?

How do we know this man isn’t an FBI agent posing as a clean up crew to fool us, or to try to explain on a U2 video to why all these steel beams might have been cut from the demolition, and people were probably asking questions to why.

Can you prove this man talking on this video is not an FBI agent doing damaged control of covering up “thematic cutter charges” that might have been used in the WTC demolitions?

Are we to take the word of unknown persons as final proof?
I did in the beginning; I used to believe Bin Laden did 911, that is what I got for trusting and taking the government at their word.



[edit on 17-3-2010 by impressme]



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 7minds
Since no one can explain how the towers fell, the original story still stands. The issue is that modern physics can't explain how the towers fell, because modern physics is FLAWED. Why use explosives, when you only need to tell 100 grams of thermite-bound-steel to expand to get the same result. Modern physics can't explain how this would happen, so these facts would fall apart in a court of law. Unless Hutchison wants to testify about the tech, but I doubt he is considered credible.


The primary point debunkers of 9-11 make is that the government would need tons of explosives to bring down all those buildings, but as you clearly point out that is not necessarily the case.

I have heard many people argue it would take days, if not weeks, to properly rig the buildings and for a while I believed them. Thermite is not a well known conventional explosive! Probably strategically placed shaped charges were used as well. If the attackers were real pros with access to lots of classified knowledge pulling off 9-11 would be child's play.

The smoking gun was the pentagon, not the wtc complex in nyc. That made me re-examine the evidence and draw different conclusions.


[edit on 19-3-2010 by EarthCitizen07]



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 




My problem is who is this person?
Who is the man that claims he made the cut?
Why is he so clean?
We do not see anyone cutting anything in this video.
The only thing you have, is a man states he made some cuts?

How do we know this man isn’t an FBI agent posing as a clean up crew to fool us, or to try to explain on a U2 video to why all these steel beams might have been cut from the demolition, and people were probably asking questions to why.


Impressme, you are starting to slip from healthy skeptisim to unhealthy paranioa with what you just said. This is no offense to you, and I am not trying to insinuate anything but, seriously what you just said is starting to bear signs of paranoia and making me wonder if you are for real interested in finding the truth or not.

An FBI agent posing as a clean up crew? Where on earth would you get an idea like that? This is not some "24 Jack Bauer-esque" "rabbit hole of conspiracy piled on conspiracy" or a Tom Clancy or Matthew Reilly thriller novel book. Thinking that somehow FBI agents are posing as clean-up crews to cover up allegedly pre-collapse cut steel beams by pretending they are actively now cutting during clean up is really far out there thinking. What is stopping you from going farther and suggesting it was really NWO shapeshifting reptoids that made this video, pretending to be demo clean up crews? (Not that I am suggesting you do actually believe that, but just asking.)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Oh crap.
Looks like they might now start playing the HAARP just for Japan.


Man you couldn't have been more prophetic.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by chorizo4
reply to post by impressme
 

By now they have spent most of the money. Too late! Complain earlier. You took the money, walk away and shut your mouths.


The fact that they were given 'Hush money.' to shut up and not question further screams cover-up to every thinking person.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Was he an insider with access to at least the japanese secret service, or does he have the same resources at his disposal as all of us?





new topics

top topics



 
126
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join