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.
Originally posted by ReconX
So why you here then?
Why do you insult people, and try to make out as if they are less intelligent than you?
Are you a bigot?
Another thing, you think Alex Jones is in it for the money? Give me a break! Do you know how much it cost's to run a full time radio station? Maybe that's why he tries to sell a few DVD's, which by the way, he encourages people to burn and give away for free. He also uploads all his documentaries to Youtube.
And yeah too right he is crazy mad, The truth does that to people!
Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Wrong. Here's what I said: "Steel buildings do not collapse into their own footprint unless each and every supporting beam is taken out in a methodical fashion."
all the beams melting and weakening at just the precise moments to initiate a near-free-fall collapse of Building 7
And that's what happened, a 47-story building collapsed into its own footprint ON DEMAND. And you pseudo-wannabe-debunkers claim that some of the rubble landed outside the bulls-eye zone. Well take a look at controlled demolition videos. SOME OF THE RUBBLE FALLS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING'S FOOTPRINT!!
You know, you aspiring debunkers really make fools of yourselves and you don't even realize it. What's even more disturbing is that you defend this criminal cabal with an OBSESSIVE PASSION. Keep drinking that fluoride, it's working quite well.edit on 7-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Have you managedto address the reason for the firefighters' expectation of collapse yet? Or their opinion of your silly conspiracy theories? I guess we'll just have to add them to the list of the cabal's pals...
Originally posted by SimontheMagus
The firefighters expecting collapse does not help your case one iota. In fact, it proves that SOMEBODY had foreknowledge.
Originally posted by SimontheMagus
The firefighters expecting collapse does not help your case one iota. In fact, it proves that SOMEBODY had foreknowledge.
Originally posted by RockLobster
Well , the body language in the interview says it all.
Why would the fire dept contact Larry Silverstein to get his input ?
He claims that he suggested they should pull it , then they made the decision to pull ,
so ..... Larry Silverstein told the firemen to pull out , and they pulled out , that is your arguement(sic) ? And you say that my arguement(sic) is weak ?
Explain to me why Larry would have such an important role in this situation , because i simply do not follow.
And... i dont know who he was talking to when he said "pull it" , i know it wasnt the fire dept because he has no authority over them , possibly a demo expert from Controlled Demolitions Inc.
Originally posted by Six Sigma
" Bashar is a multi-dimensional extra-terrestrial being who speaks through channel Darryl Anka from what we perceive as the future."
Originally posted by lunarasparagus
Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by lunarasparagus
If they claim to have inspected the damage and decided it was going to collapse, then yes , they were lying. The damage to tower 7 was not enough for it to collapse , how hard is this for you to understand ?
Frank Cruthers: "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)
So it seems clear that you believe Fire Chief Frank Cruthers and/or Chief Fellini is LYING. Is this the case? Who should we believe?edit on 8-4-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by RockLobster
What are you getting at ? is there a point that you are trying to make ?
I have already said , who ever said that they checked the tower and the damage had compromised the structural integrity of the building , was LYING ..... in this case , it looks like Fellini , doesnt it.
Why are you asking ? ..... again ?
Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
You call it foreknowledge cuz you can't fathom that they just might know their job, and so assume some sort of conspiracy.
Others recognize their experience and education and don't have an issue with their strong belief that 7 would fall due to structural and fire damage.
Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by GenRadek
Show me proof he didnt lie , show me proof of a severly damaged WTC 7 ........ can you ? i`m tired of asking you.
From the text he quoted , Fellini is the one who said the structural integrity was compromised , he`s a liar.
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)