|
|
Wolf_Larson
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 442
Location: The Sea |
 Thu Dec 18, 2003 5:09 am
|
 |
|
OH, God, Mech stop it.
(wipes the tears of laughter from my eyes, cleans the diet cherry 7up from the monitor)
That was too funny. please warn us before posting stuff like that.
|
| |
|
|
jetblack
Joined: 19 Nov 2003
Posts: 36
Location: NY NY |
|
Thu Dec 18, 2003 5:14 am
|
|
|
Well I was there that day and it didn't happen the way mech says it happened. |
| |
|
|
jetblack
Joined: 19 Nov 2003
Posts: 36
Location: NY NY |
|
Thu Dec 18, 2003 5:32 am
|
|
|
Firefighter, can you prove that anything out of the norm happened to bldg seven? Are you a NY firefighter if so what is your engine ladder number.
you stated
Hey professor, That was WTC 7, not six.
So now not only two other buildings were sabotaged but now another? |
| |
|
|
Wolf_Larson
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 442
Location: The Sea |
|
Thu Dec 18, 2003 5:41 am
|
|
|
It is my understanding that burning debris from the impact and subsequent collapse set 7 on fire. The tower collapses damaged the water mains. With no way to effectively fight the fire, and the thought that there were survivors of the collapse that needed to be rescued, the fire department elected to let it burn. It burned for something like seven hours. Four hours longer than it was fire rated for.
Some of the steel salvaged and analyzed from # 7 was severely eroded by heat and exposure to the hot combustion gasses (i.e. sulfur released from the burning drywall).
In addition, I read somewhere that there was a fuel oil AST on the first floor of the building that supplied an emergency generator on one of the upper floors.
A Firefighter, do you have any info on that?
|
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:20 am
|
|
|
IMHO
anyone who has actually read every post on this topic
and visited all links,
and viewed or heard all evidence,
or who has ever seen a controlled demolition,
can face the truth.
They destroyed those towers to keep them from falling over.
WTC-7 is a totally different situation.
mat Drudge had pictures on his website of a missile headed for WTC-7
Perhaps an attempt to shoot down one of the jumbo jets that struck the building (containing all evidence in the Silverado S&L investigation) by accident?
[Edited 1 times, lastly by shatoga on 12-17-2003] |
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:58 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shatoga:
anyone who has actually read every post on this topic and visited all links,
and viewed or heard all evidence, or who has ever seen a controlled demolition, can face the truth. They destroyed those towers to keep them from falling over.
No. Seeing a controlled demolition is irrelevant nor does it make us experts.
More importantly, how many 110-story skyscrapers have we seen collapse, demolished or not? And is there any information regarding any skyscraper ever "falling over?" I can't find any, but unfortunately the conspiracist theory websites have saturated Google to the point where I can't find much in the way of tall building collapses without hitting a 9/11 conspiracy site.
Has there been a case of a skyscraper "falling over?"
quote:
WTC-7 is a totally different situation. mat Drudge had pictures on his website of a missile headed for WTC-7 erhaps an attempt to shoot down one of the jumbo jets that struck the building (containing all evidence in the Silverado S&L investigation) by accident?
Uh huh... A missile headed for WTC-7 at what time? At 5pm when the building collapsed? There were no planes in the sky to shoot at at that time. And if the cruise missile was shot earlier in the day then, for conspiracy theorists, the problem is why did it take so long to collapse?
I agree with others in this thread. It's obvious that the fire was just left to burn and was not a priority. It is not surprising that the building collapsed when a fire is not addressed for 7 hours. Even a small fire would have time to spread and do serious damage in that amount of time.
That's why we have fire departments, after all. WTC-7 is a good case for the need for fire department budgets, not proof of a 9/11 conspiracy.
|
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:08 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mech:
[B]THE TRUTH:
http://www.c0balt.com/resources/911/download.shtml
The truth seems to be that that's a conspiracy website SELLING their conspiracy. No conflict of interest there... Nah... 
|
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:45 pm
|
|
|
I'm having trouble with this post. Give me a few minutes. Thx.
[Edited 8 times, lastly by JerseyBluEyz on 12-18-2003] |
| |
|
|
the professor
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1164
Location: heartland USA |
|
Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:06 pm
|
|
|
Jersey your first two links didn't come up, thats too big to be a missile in my opinion, I'm thinking to the likes of an aurora spy craft that is unmanned, above top secret.com use to have some info on these that also represent the same size and shape of the craft recorded plus that Japanese website that Beck.com has shows the entire path that someone from the other side of the river had captured on tape. The link I'm interested shows bldg 7 come crashing down like a controled demolition this is the only bldg in my opinion that came down in a suspicious way (probaly do to lack of demolition knowledge). |
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:14 pm
|
|
|
This is for you Professor - on WTC 7. I'm working on the rest. Sheesh!
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html
[Edited 1 times, lastly by JerseyBluEyz on 12-18-2003] |
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:30 pm
|
|
|
Oh boy - here we go again with sleeping sheeple! Although WTC 7 collapsed suspiciously, WTC 6 would have been the one struck by a streaking or missile-like object (better Professor? smooch)! If some of you would read what is posted earlier on in this thread (as others CLAIM to do) then you would have known this by now. Since I was having trouble posting the images here, I’ll have to direct you to them.
WTC 1 (North Tower) Flight 11 struck at 8:46 a.m. – collapsed (second) at 10:28 a.m.
WTC 2 (South Tower) Flight 175 struck at 9:03 a.m. – collapsed (first) at 9:54 a.m.
WTC 6 exploded at 9:04 a.m.
WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20 p.m.
For the WTC layout, first photo on the left and second photo on the left: http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/04damagemaps.html
For image of animated streaking object: http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/
Image of explosion at WTC 6 (look at bottom right):
Article on WTC6: http://www.americanfreepress.net/07_14_02/Unexplained_9-11_/unexplained_9-11_.html
For 3D rendition of the WTC damage that clearly shows a crater at WTC 6, go here and scan ½ way down the page: http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/06crater.html
For a close-up of the crater, scan to the bottom of the same (previous) page with the 3D image.
[Edited 2 times, lastly by JerseyBluEyz on 12-18-2003] |
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:18 pm
|
|
|
Wolf Larson – PLEASE look into the long term effects of aspartame on the body AND the mind. |
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:20 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Although WTC 7 collapsed suspiciously, WTC 6 would have been the one struck by a streaking or missile-like object
Unfortunately I can't find any link on the site you mentioned where I can see the video itself--only frames and animated GIFs which, quite frankly, are easily doctored. I'd like to see some images hosted on non-conspiracy sites that support this.
The site itself states that the "original" Fox video is no longer available which is itself suspicious. Conspiracy theorists will look at this as evidence of a conspiracy and cover-up. The rest of us will look at it as suspicious information/video that is only available on a conspiracy website.
Even if we were to accept the frames/animated GIFs as being correct, it is clear by the angle that it would have landed nowhere near WTC6. It would have landed well north of the WTC area.
quote:
WTC 6 exploded at 9:04 a.m.
What's the evidence? For example, here's a few pictures that show both WTC1 and 2 burning.
http://www.bigfoto.com/sites/galery/sept11/wtc_new_york_september_11.jpg http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/art/slides/terrorism/0911wtc/39.jpg http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/art/slides/terrorism/0911wtc/34.jpg
All of thee pictures were taken after 9:04am... yet smoke of any kind billowing from WTC6 is nowhere to be seen. So was WTC6 destroyed by some missle that magically doesn't create any smoke?
quote:
Image of explosion at WTC 6 (look at bottom right):
It is not clear what time this happened, but it does look like the first tower is collapsing in the background and the plume in the bottom left (not right) is probably from the collapsing tower. If this photo was from 9:04am then I can't explain why no such smoke is seen in other pictures that were clearly taken after 9:04am, can you?
quote:
For 3D rendition of the WTC damage that clearly shows a crater at WTC 6, go here and scan ½ way down the page:
Yes, I see the hole. You can call it a crater if you want. I also see rubble that appears to be from a tower in that hole, and WTC6 was next to the North Tower so it would not be surprising if something punctured it when the tower fell. It doesn't take much mass falling from 1300 feet to do tremendous damage below.
This is, again, a case of conspiracy theorists seeing what they want to see and coming up with unlikely explanations that make less sense and are less logical than less sensational reality.
[Edited 3 times, lastly by letxa2000 on 12-18-2003] |
| |
|
|
the professor
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1164
Location: heartland USA |
|
Fri Dec 19, 2003 12:13 am
|
|
|
Heres the link to which I referred to with the shot taken from across the river, I have seen two other videos that were taken from the same side which showed the same incident of the one event that were talking about, notice it couldn't be a missile because of the route that it took.
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/06062002.shtml |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu May 24, 2012 1:34 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
