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.

 

So who the heck ever said "Pull it" was slang for controlled demolitions?

page: 45
17
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
 

Barry described major bomb damage in the interior of BLD 7.


Barry ALSO described "major damage caused by King Kong" in the interior of BLD 7 (I.E. the lobby looked as if "King Kong came in and smashed the lobby"). He was using analogies. They weren't bomb damage.

By Jenning's own time line the explosions he heard/felt occurred at the same time that the north tower collapsed, and I don't need to tell you that claiming carefully timed bombs went off at the same time as a massive impact frrom wreckage that would create the same patetrn of damage in its own right is adding convolusion entirely for conspiracy mongoring sake.




posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Oops what? Subtract the 6 seconds between the start of the collapse of the penthouse section and the start of the collapse of the main structure from the 13 seconds of total demolition time and you have about 7 seconds.


but nonetheless it has more credibility than claims that the building "fell symmetrically" with NO evidence to back the claim up.

You were caught posting false information. Deal with it.


What about the video and photographic evidence that shows this?



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


Good job ignoring me by replying to my posts
But you are right, those publications containing all that math and physics are foolish. Youtube videos for the win!



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Oops what? Subtract the 6 seconds between the start of the collapse of the penthouse section and the start of the collapse of the main structure from the 13 seconds of total demolition time and you have about 7 seconds.


but nonetheless it has more credibility than claims that the building "fell symmetrically" with NO evidence to back the claim up.

You were caught posting false information. Deal with it.


What about the video and photographic evidence that shows this?


Visual evidence doesn't matter with these would-be debunkers. The only thing that matters is to throw up nonsense in an attempt to discredit anyone on the side of truth. It wouldn't matter if the building fell in 7 seconds or 13 seconds and they know it. It shouldn't have fallen, period. It was controlled demolition and the building's owner admitted giving the order to take it down. DEAL WITH THAT.
edit on 2-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Visual evidence doesn't matter with these would-be debunkers. The only thing that matters is to throw up nonsense in an attempt to discredit anyone on the side of truth. It wouldn't matter if the building fell in 7 seconds or 13 seconds and they know it. It shouldn't have fallen, period. It was controlled demolition and the building's owner admitted giving the order to take it down. DEAL WITH THAT

Who here is ignoring evidence? Silverstein never gave any order. In his own quote he said, " . . .and THEY made the decision to pull". The fire chiefs at the scene testified that they were making the decisions. Chief Nigro stated that he never even talked to Silverstein that day. He was clear that his decision to evacuate the firemen was due to concern of an impending collapse of WTC 7 due to structural and fire damage. Numerous firefighters have corroborated this account.

Why do you insist that Silverstein was giving orders? Why do you believe the FDNY firemen were lying about what happened? Do you think they also assisted in the demolitions of towers 1 and 2? Do you think they aided in the murder of hundreds of other firemen?



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Visual evidence doesn't matter with these would-be debunkers. The only thing that matters is to throw up nonsense in an attempt to discredit anyone on the side of truth. It wouldn't matter if the building fell in 7 seconds or 13 seconds and they know it. It shouldn't have fallen, period. It was controlled demolition and the building's owner admitted giving the order to take it down. DEAL WITH THAT

Who here is ignoring evidence? Silverstein never gave any order. In his own quote he said, " . . .and THEY made the decision to pull". The fire chiefs at the scene testified that they were making the decisions. Chief Nigro stated that he never even talked to Silverstein that day. He was clear that his decision to evacuate the firemen was due to concern of an impending collapse of WTC 7 due to structural and fire damage. Numerous firefighters have corroborated this account.

Why do you insist that Silverstein was giving orders? Why do you believe the FDNY firemen were lying about what happened? Do you think they also assisted in the demolitions of towers 1 and 2? Do you think they aided in the murder of hundreds of other firemen?

There were no firemen in building 7 when they "pulled it". Several people, firemen, policemen, and civilians witnessed that they began announcing by bullhorn in the early afternoon to clear the area because the building was coming down. And geez, no shock at all in Silverstein's voice that "we watched the building come down". They expected it. I guess the two main towers set a precedent, since no steel buildings had ever collapsed from fire. Or maybe Silverstein had a crystal ball. Whatever the case, yes, you are ignoring the evidence. Steel buildings do not collapse into their own footprint unless each and every supporting beam is taken out in a methodical fashion. This is why they have controlled-demolition companies. Otherwise, it would just be a lot cheaper to light a skyscraper on fire and wait for it to neatly collapse the way building 7 did.

Puleez, you insult the intelligence of every sane and rational person by continuing to suggest that this building could have collapsed the way it did from fires and structural damage to a lower corner. It is a complete waste of time to continue arguing this with buffoons who refuse to acknowledge the known laws of physics. Maybe you should go find your erector set in the attic and play with it for awhile.
edit on 2-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Puleez, you insult the intelligence of every sane and rational person by continuing to suggest that this building could have collapsed the way it did from fires and structural damage to a lower corner. It is a complete waste of time to continue arguing this with buffoons who refuse to acknowledge the known laws of physics. Maybe you should go find your erector set in the attic and play with it for awhile.


Every time a truther is asked to come with the physics that show any law is violated, there isn't any reply. Just baseless assertions like you are making now. You can't just make up laws of physics. They are very precisely defined by mathematics.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 

You're still dodging my question. How do you account for this?


1) Fire Chief Frank Fellini: "The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. ... We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down." (Interview, 12/3/2001)

2) Fire Chief Daniel Nigro: "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." (Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

Daniel Nigro (in another account): "I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely." (Interview, 10/24/2001)

3) Fire Chief Frank Cruthers: "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area ... be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it." (Interview, 10/31/2001)

Frank Cruthers (in another account): "Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been comprised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy." (Frank Cruthers, "Postcollapse Command," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

4) Fire Captain Ray Goldbach: "There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse. ... Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way." (Interview, 10/24/2001)


Are these guys just liars? Why don't they mention the order from Silverstein? Are the covering? Were they in on it? Did they also aid in murdering their colleagues who died in towers 1 & 2?

You emphasize visual evidence, but do you disagree that evidence of any sort has to be considered within the context of ALL available evidence?



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX
 

What about the video and photographic evidence that shows this?


There is no video or photographic evidence that shows this, that's why I acknowledge it's a theory.

The difference though is that NIST didn't just say "duh, the building fell, it much have been bombs" and then run away giggling like Richard Gage does. They attempted to reverse engineer the collapse that fits the know evidence I.E. the structural design, eyewitness accounts, NYPD photographs, and video...as well as that weird way the penthouse collapsed. What they wound up with that replicates how the north face collapsed is a model of the south face collapsing inward, so the penthouse didn't actually just fall down into the interior of the structure, it actually toppled over at the same time the south face folded in.

Although even NIST admits this is an educated guess, it does bring up the interesting question of "what makes you so sure the south side fell the exact same way as the north side if you don't have any evidence one way or the other"?



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 




1) Fire Chief Frank Fellini: "The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. ... We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down." (Interview, 12/3/2001)

2) Fire Chief Daniel Nigro: "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." (Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

Daniel Nigro (in another account): "I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely." (Interview, 10/24/2001)


Frank Cruthers (in another account): "Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been comprised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy." (Frank Cruthers, "Postcollapse Command," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

4) Fire Captain Ray Goldbach: "There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse. ... Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way." (Interview, 10/24/2001)


Are these guys just liars? Why don't they mention the order from Silverstein? Are the covering? Were they in on it? Did they also aid in murdering their colleagues who died in towers 1 & 2?

You emphasize visual evidence, but do you disagree that evidence of any sort has to be considered within the context of ALL available evidence?


Mr lunarasspergrass
Do you have any idea of what sub-basement low is?
Why do you and your MERRY BAND of BEND assult me and the members here on this thread with accusations that they call firemen LIARS????????????
I am taking this to the MODERATORS,
Especially when you post two conflicting fire people interviews.
And ask members here if they are LIARS.
You do know what is below the basement don't you???????

Have you ever asked YOURSELF????????



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 

Is this all you have britches? Have I asked the wrong questions? Do my questions threaten you? Seems you've gotten your longjohns all up in a wad.

Please point out to me where I ever accused another ATS member of calling firefighters liars, or where I have called another member a liar. I've only pointed out that the testimonies of FDNY fire chiefs conflict with the interpretation of Silverstein's "pull it" comment as being an order to demo the building with explosives. Their testimonies state very clearly that they were concerned about WTC 7 collapsing due to sever structural and fire damage.

I've asked how believers in the "pull it" controlled demolition theory account for these testimonies--how they make sense of them. So far I haven't received an answer. Curious isn't it?
edit on 2-4-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 

Is this all you have britches? Have I asked the wrong questions? Do my questions threaten you? Seems you've gotten your longjohns all up in a wad.

Please point out to me where I ever accused another ATS member of calling firefighters liars, or where I have called another member a liar. I've only pointed out that the testimonies of FDNY fire chiefs conflict with the interpretation of Silverstein's "pull it" comment as being an order to demo the building with explosives. Their testimonies state very clearly that they were concerned about WTC 7 collapsing due to sever structural and fire damage.

I've asked how believers in the "pull it" controlled demolition theory account for these testimonies--how they make sense of them. So far I haven't received an answer. Curious isn't it?
edit on 2-4-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)


Hi lun
I would say no most likley to all your BS above.
because in my opinion that is all you have offered this thread and ATS as a whole.
I will reserve my comments to you dear sir.
Untill the Moderators have a look.
Basemrnt brother.
have a nice ride. ljb



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Actually this has been explained but as usual it was ignored, and now you all pretend it was never discussed.

OSers have terrible memories, as lots of things that have been covered, get ignored, and then we're accused of not addressing them. We have gone around in circles like this for years, OS denial and obfuscation.

There is a difference between a person thinking a building will collapse, and one that collapses into its own footprint.

Someone HAD to have known 7 was going to be demolished, as there is NO precedence for anyone to claim the building was going to collapse from fire. You can't predict something that has never happened before, how would they know? Asymmetrical structural damage to a building normally does not cause a collapse into its own footprint, and neither does fire.


9/11/2001 radio broadcast: "We were just sitting here watching all the smoke pouring up from
number 7 ... we really couldn't see much damage on it ... I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion, it looked like it had been done by a demolition crew... that's number 1,
number 2, and now number 7 that have come down from this explosion and folks just simply can't believe it. ... I just never for the life of me imagined that these huge buildings would just fall, and that's what happened, they just crumbled." [338kB wma download]

whatreallyhappened.com...

They were there, were you?


"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."

whatreallyhappened.com...

Blow up, not collapse from fire.


At 4:38 p.m. all of the windows between 13-44A and 13-47C were open, and the fires responsible for opening the windows had died down to the point where they could no longer be observed. Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. The event that caused this unusual behavior has not been identified. [NIST Report]

whatreallyhappened.com...

What caused that?


9/11/2001 radio broadcast: "...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."

whatreallyhappened.com...

Oh yeah, no explosives were heard? Shockwave rippling through the building? Does that sound like a gradual collapse from fire damage to you?


"While we were on the right side, there was firefighters getting ready, they were bussing them back and forth, and a couple of vets that were there - they got the vibe that something was coming down," said McPadden.

"We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown."

"But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look - like just run for your life - because he didn't want to bring it on his conscience - he didn't want to go to his grave with that - and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together," said McPadden.

McPadden then describes the frantic attempts to escape as the building began to collapse.

prisonplanet.com...

My wild guess is the fire fighters were not supposed to know WTC 7 was coming down, but the word got out. Their lives were thankfully saved.

So NO the fire fighters were not in on it. Stop trying to claim we think they were, and stop claiming we ignore your stupid questions.

When are YOU going to explain how a building can collapse into its own footprint from fire?


edit on 4/2/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Hi lun
I would say no most likley to all your BS above.
because in my opinion that is all you have offered this thread and ATS as a whole.
I will reserve my comments to you dear sir.
Untill the Moderators have a look.
Basemrnt brother.
have a nice ride. ljb


So, basically you're copping out from answering any questions because you don't want to think about it. I mean, come on! There is irrefutable proof that dozens of trained professionals suspected and expected Building 7 would collapse. Is that somehow irrelevant to you?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Hi lun
I would say no most likley to all your BS above.
because in my opinion that is all you have offered this thread and ATS as a whole.
I will reserve my comments to you dear sir.
Untill the Moderators have a look.
Basemrnt brother.
have a nice ride. ljb


So, basically you're copping out from answering any questions because you don't want to think about it. I mean, come on! There is irrefutable proof that dozens of trained professionals suspected and expected Building 7 would collapse. Is that somehow irrelevant to you?


Hi var,
Why did they send you to your doom??
Do you want to join the Merry Band of Bend in thier attempt to marginalize people who speak truthfully?
Do you accept the attempt to impune (truth speaking people) as basher of firemen???? Do you detest fireman?
Why??
xm1 a ljb



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
I think you didn't catch my sarcasm. I'm asking--what are the chances, if WTC7 was brought down by CD, that the firefighters just happened to surmise it was going to collapse anyway, and evacuated the area?


Because those at the top new, and made the order to evacuate?

Why is that so unbelievable?

They had to have known it was going to be a controlled collapse, because there is not precedence in history for any fire fighter to claim the building was going to completely collapse from fire. It has never happened before.

What could they have seen that would make them think an event that has never happened before would happen? There has been hundreds of high rise fires in NY.


edit on 3/25/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


You are changing your ground so it is difficult to know what you are saying. Did you not write the above on page 29 ? Is it not a clear accusation of FDNY complicity, at least at senior levels ?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 

Your response has a lot of text, but little that actually addresses my question. Rather than answering directly, you want to redirect attention to random witnesses who possibly heard explosions, a news reporter's personal speculations, some random soundbites of people saying "it's coming down", and "it's going to blow up" (who knows what these people had heard or been told), and then of course you have Kevin McPadden a purported EMT first-responder with dubious credibility who has embellished his story each time he's told it as demonstrated here:

But my question here is specific. You're going on again about apparent evidence of a controlled demolition. That's all well and good. But I'm asking how does one who believes in the CD theory account for the unambiguous testimonies of the fire chiefs who were in charge that day--the guys who were personally assessing the situation, who had inspected WTC 7 first hand, and who were making the critical decisions.

You posted this:


9/11/2001 radio broadcast: "We were just sitting here watching all the smoke pouring up from number 7 ... we really couldn't see much damage on it ... I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion, it looked like it had been done by a demolition crew... that's number 1, number 2, and now number 7 that have come down from this explosion and folks just simply can't believe it. ... I just never for the life of me imagined that these huge buildings would just fall, and that's what happened, they just crumbled."

The above are quotes from a news reporter--not someone with any relevant expertise or who had personally inspected the building close up as the fire chiefs had done. You underscore where he says "we really couldn't see much damage on it" as if it's some kind of evidence, but I notice you left out the part where he says, ". . . but we really couldn't see a lot of damage, from this angle, from the north side of the structure". Interesting omission.


Compare with this from Fire Chief Cruthers:

"Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been comprised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy." (Frank Cruthers, "Postcollapse Command," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)


The fire chiefs' testimonies were perfectly clear, not at all ambiguous regarding building 7, what they believed about its condition and potential for collapse:


Fire Chief Frank Fellini: "The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. ... We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing".

Fire Chief Daniel Nigro: "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt."

Chief Frank Cruthers: "Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. . . Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. . . It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC"

And from that, YOU somehow conclude:

My wild guess is the fire fighters were not supposed to know WTC 7 was coming down, but the word got out. Their lives were thankfully saved.

"The word got out"? Their lives were "thankfully saved"? You mean they just got lucky? You're being straight up dishonest here. Or you're blind from bias. Either the Fire Chiefs were covering for the "perps"--A.K.A., LYING--or they reported it as it happened. There's no gray area with this one. And you know it, so stop playing dumb.
edit on 3-4-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)

ETA: There is one more possible answer to this issue which I posted here:

edit on 3-4-2012 by lunarasparagus because: ETA



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Hi var,
Why did they send you to your doom??
Do you want to join the Merry Band of Bend in thier attempt to marginalize people who speak truthfully?
Do you accept the attempt to impune (truth speaking people) as basher of firemen???? Do you detest fireman?
Why??
xm1 a ljb


What kind of response is this? It probably has the worst formatting I've ever seen, and it isn't even a response to the point I was making. Why did who send me to what doom? What the hell is a merry band of bend? When did I say you were bashing firemen. What the hell is this about me detesting firemen? What the hell are you talking about, and what the hell is "xm1 a ljb"?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Maybe the Building 7 firemen were warned about its collapse by the same people who told Giuliani that the main towers were going to collapse.

He was confronted about it by a woman whose firefighter husband was killed and she wanted to know why he wasn't entitled to the same information. Giuliani looked at her like the cat that ate the canary and walked away.

It's always nice to have inside information.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Pull it down?
Tear it down?
Bring it down?

Regardless of what that guy said, It couldn't have been anybody but the US Government, the evidence is overwhelming.

I can't believe its been over 10 years and people still believe otherwise.

God bless america!



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join