Originally posted by Six Sigma
I think the OP got his WTC numbers confused. It is a well known fact that some buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. For example, WTC- 6 was brought down by C.D. using AMEC Construction. (they weaked the building further and used cables to pull it.

WTC- 5 was also demolished by January 2002 - The same way WTC 6 and also WTC -4 were. So, yes truthers, 3 buildings from the WTC complex were taken down via controlled demolition. They were not 1,2 or 7. Sorry that you or your friend got the building number wrong.

Sure. However, haven't you read Shapiro's article at Fox News?

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I think the OP got his WTC numbers confused. It is a well known fact that some buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. For example, WTC- 6 was brought down by C.D. using AMEC Construction. (they weaked the building further and used cables to pull it.

WTC- 5 was also demolished by January 2002 - The same way WTC 6 and also WTC -4 were. So, yes truthers, 3 buildings from the WTC complex were taken down via controlled demolition. They were not 1,2 or 7. Sorry that you or your friend got the building number wrong.

is there a video footage of these buildings getting demolished? i would like to see how they go down.

Originally posted by behindthescenes

I never said it was "common knowledge," only that my source told me about the demolition of WTC7 in an off-handed way as though it was common knowledge. THat's what I meant.

So in other words you're embellishing. You're taking some anonymous person's off the cuff remark and passing it off as if it's every day information. And you wonder why there are people like myself who can't take a single thing you truthers say seriously.

Well, I do hope your friend does have the courage to stop hiding under his bed and release his information. It would necessarily mean it will be the first legitimate bit of information showing conspiracy that doesn't need to rely on the trickery, innuendo dropping, and outright lies the truthers have exclusively relied upon up until now to get people all paranoid over shadows and imaginary boogeymen. I'm not holding my breath, though, as the entire reason the truther movement needs to rely on trickery, innuendo dropping, and outright lies in the first place is specifically because this whole conspiracy bit is baloney and the main proponents are out to make a fast buck off the movement rather than learn the truth about anything. THAT is the true "common knowledge".

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by behindthescenes

I never said it was "common knowledge," only that my source told me about the demolition of WTC7 in an off-handed way as though it was common knowledge. THat's what I meant.

So in other words you're embellishing. You're taking some anonymous person's off the cuff remark and passing it off as if it's every day information. And you wonder why there are people like myself who can't take a single thing you truthers say seriously.

No, it's not "embellishing." It's called "characterizing." And I've been a journalist long enough to have earned the ability to describe a situation and how it appeared to me.

Well, I do hope your friend does have the courage to stop hiding under his bed and release his information. It would necessarily mean it will be the first legitimate bit of information showing conspiracy that doesn't need to rely on the trickery, innuendo dropping, and outright lies the truthers have exclusively relied upon up until now to get people all paranoid over shadows and imaginary boogeymen. I'm not holding my breath, though, as the entire reason the truther movement needs to rely on trickery, innuendo dropping, and outright lies in the first place is specifically because this whole conspiracy bit is baloney and the main proponents are out to make a fast buck off the movement rather than learn the truth about anything. THAT is the true "common knowledge".

I'm crossing my fingers, too. Hopefully corroborated with some documents as well.

Originally posted by thedman

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.

You seem to know a lot about WTC7, can you help me find any info about it in the 911 Commission Report .
Thank you sir, I await your answer.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Congratulations. You just accused the New York Fire department AND the New York Police Department AND the New York Port Authority of conspiring to commit mass murder.

and you are, who?
their lawyer or just another brown-nosed citizen, eh?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by behindthescenes

I never said it was "common knowledge," only that my source told me about the demolition of WTC7 in an off-handed way as though it was common knowledge. THat's what I meant.

So in other words you're embellishing. You're taking some anonymous person's off the cuff remark and passing it off as if it's every day information. And you wonder why there are people like myself who can't take a single thing you truthers say seriously.

Well, I do hope your friend does have the courage to stop hiding under his bed and release his information. It would necessarily mean it will be the first legitimate bit of information showing conspiracy that doesn't need to rely on the trickery, innuendo dropping, and outright lies the truthers have exclusively relied upon up until now to get people all paranoid over shadows and imaginary boogeymen. I'm not holding my breath, though, as the entire reason the truther movement needs to rely on trickery, innuendo dropping, and outright lies in the first place is specifically because this whole conspiracy bit is baloney and the main proponents are out to make a fast buck off the movement rather than learn the truth about anything. THAT is the true "common knowledge".

dude, stop blowing bubbles from your arse.
lol.

and watch tv footage from 9/11/01.
again and again and again.
and again.

by the way, your guvmnit made far much moneys off of 9/11 than any truther
ever has (or will, although that argument is just another one coming from debunkers
because they are pathetic and they're outnumbered and are feeling cornered), so if
you are so "concerned" about moneys, maybe you should grow a pair and go after
the big boys. eh? but that means you need to first pull your head from your arse.
but, your head doesn't want to, right?

Originally posted by behindthescenes

---

I'm crossing my fingers, too. Hopefully corroborated with some documents as well.

Well, here's something to light a fire under his butt...if he really isn't just mindlessly quoting some sexy sounding thing he read on one of these damned fool conspiracy web sites and he genuinely has insider information, hit means he has evidence of a coverup that got 3000 innocent people killed. If *I* knew the identity of someone who murdered 3000 I'd be sure as shootin' be calling it in to crimestoppers. Why is HE protecting the identity of a bunch of murderers? He won't' even need to come forward directly. He can go to any one of those mass media conspiracy theorists with their own personal media empires, like Alex Jones or Richard Gage, and let the secret gov't agents assassinate them.

In case you didn't know this before you posted this...and it sounds like you didn't...those of us who come here to put these conspiracy theories under the light of reason and critical analysis don't have anything to lose if genuine information proving conspiracy comes to light, other than maybe eating some crow. You truthers on the other hand have a LOT to lose by playing the Senator McCarthy routine and claiming "you have inside information about 9/11 on that piece of paper in your hand" because sooner or later you're going to need to show what you've got. Up until now all you have is the make believe you're getting off those damned ool conspiracy web sites so I hope for your sake this isn't just a game you're playing out of last resort desperation..

Originally posted by psyop911

and you are, who?
their lawyer or just another brown-nosed citizen, eh?

Allow me to answer your question with another question- Are you genuinely saying it's perfectly fine to go around accusing innocent people of conspiracy to commit mass murder if it advances your political agenda? As far as you're concerned, I'm a nobody, because as far as I'm concerned, your truther movement is a laughing stock and it's no skin off my nose if you wind up being censured and ordered to pay hefty fines for behaving like a complete idiot like Judy Wood's lawyers were.

The only thing I care about is that you truthers with your penchant for changing everything you touch into a three ring circus of absurdity are raping the call for further investigations like it was a five dollar whore, and you're destroying any possibility of any genine investigatiosn for the rest of us. It's nigh impossible to call for an investigation into how the gov't let us down on 9/11 when you characters steer it away into proving the planes were all holograms and bin Laden was really a shape shifting alien lizard.

Good grief, grow up.

Originally posted by behindthescenes
...a person who is involved in some way with the WTC project financing and studies says, without batting an eye, that WTC7 was purposely demolished because the damage was too great.

No, it didn't collapse on its own, but was "imploded."

He told me this like it was a known fact. In fact, it was common knowledge as the WTC owners were negotiating over insurance payments for WTC7.

Could you start next time right our from this message?

That would mean that the demolition scheme was already installed in the building, wasn't it? It takes weeks...
Or it was always there. Just in case.

Update on this.

I will be conducting an official interview with the source this Thursday, mainly about his experience working with Silverstein on the 9/11 lawsuits, but we'll be getting into WTC7.

I will post my findings here before I do the article, and hopefully will also have that documentation, so we can settle this.