Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 4:27 pm
get over it
Page 3 of 3
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 4:30 pm
no...
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 4:32 pm
owned
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 4:33 pm
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 5:46 pm
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 5:59 pm
Interesting read.
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 7:34 pm
The producers of CSpan 2 wear tinfoil hats too you know.
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 8:28 pm
obviously the govt does as their explaination of what happened is just as much as a conspiracy theory as any other explanation since they haven't given real evidence of their side of the story...
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 10:17 pm
You are a complete fucking idiot if you think that the Towers were demo'd.Freakaloin wrote:nice how all the steel beams blew up just the right size to be taken off in trucks quickly and destroyed before investigators were allowed to inspect them...
well they wanted to inspected them but they were not allowed permits to do so...hmmm....
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 11:00 pm
that wtc7 or whatever it's called was blown up though wasn't it?
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 11:02 pm
Yes, the owner admitted it on national television.
Don't argue the point though, just because there were somehow explosives in WTC7 just waiting to be blown, doesn't mean that there is any way in hell there could have been anything of the sort in the other two buildings.
Trust me on this, because you're an idiot if you believe it.
Don't argue the point though, just because there were somehow explosives in WTC7 just waiting to be blown, doesn't mean that there is any way in hell there could have been anything of the sort in the other two buildings.
Trust me on this, because you're an idiot if you believe it.
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 11:06 pm
get off your high horse dickhead. i was asking because all i've ever seen on telly about it is some bloke in a tie saying that it was the right thing to do (blow up wtc7).R00k wrote:Yes, the owner admitted it on national television.
Don't argue the point though, just because there were somehow explosives in WTC7 just waiting to be blown, doesn't mean that there is any way in hell there could have been anything of the sort in the other two buildings.
Trust me on this, because you're an idiot if you believe it.
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 11:12 pm
Okay, okay.
The clip you saw was the one I was talking about. He is the leaseholder for WTC7, and was the one who gave the order to demolish it with the charges that were already inside.
A lot of people do know this already though, and I don't see why it would be such a big leap to believe that if they were in one building that they could have been in the others.
I don't claim to know whether they had charges in them or not. I just find the lack of curiosity and questions appalling.
The clip you saw was the one I was talking about. He is the leaseholder for WTC7, and was the one who gave the order to demolish it with the charges that were already inside.
A lot of people do know this already though, and I don't see why it would be such a big leap to believe that if they were in one building that they could have been in the others.
I don't claim to know whether they had charges in them or not. I just find the lack of curiosity and questions appalling.
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 11:24 pm
I have no curiosity about the Towers because I watched both of them fall, and I've seen a LOT of buildings brought down by charges. There were no explosions to make me think that anything fishy was up. WTC7 I know nothing about.
Say for a moment that there were charges in the Towers. If there were charges on every floor, then 1.) Someone would have seen people wiring them up at some point. There's too much prep work involved in installing the charges to work effectively to believe otherwise. 2.) People would have seen the explosions rippling through the building as it came down.
If there were charges on just one or two floors, what are the odds that the hijackers would have hit the right ones? And again, why no visible explosions?
Say for a moment that there were charges in the Towers. If there were charges on every floor, then 1.) Someone would have seen people wiring them up at some point. There's too much prep work involved in installing the charges to work effectively to believe otherwise. 2.) People would have seen the explosions rippling through the building as it came down.
If there were charges on just one or two floors, what are the odds that the hijackers would have hit the right ones? And again, why no visible explosions?
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 12:30 am
u haven't seen buildings this tall demoed..and not this kind of design...with a core and exoskeleton. u need to read up on wtc7. the power was cut for some reason the weekend before 911 and all the dogs removed from the buildings as well...demo charges can be placed wireless. most the explosives could have been placed in the core...
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 12:31 am
and there is lots of evidence of explosions...u just gotta look for it...
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 2:41 am
There weren't explosives already in wtc 7. The fire department cordoned off the area and prepared things, then demolished the building.R00k wrote:Yes, the owner admitted it on national television.
Don't argue the point though, just because there were somehow explosives in WTC7 just waiting to be blown, doesn't mean that there is any way in hell there could have been anything of the sort in the other two buildings.
Trust me on this, because you're an idiot if you believe it.
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 8:22 am
That makes two forum members with crazy broken eyes.Freakaloin wrote:and there is lots of evidence of explosions...u just gotta look for it...
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 12:42 pm
They went in while the building was burning and placed charges all through it to demo it? I've never heard of any fire department doing that. Usually if it's a fire they can't put out, they just let it burn out once it's evacuated.HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:There weren't explosives already in wtc 7. The fire department cordoned off the area and prepared things, then demolished the building.R00k wrote:Yes, the owner admitted it on national television.
Don't argue the point though, just because there were somehow explosives in WTC7 just waiting to be blown, doesn't mean that there is any way in hell there could have been anything of the sort in the other two buildings.
Trust me on this, because you're an idiot if you believe it.
Where did you hear that?
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 12:58 pm
Geoof, stop proving that you're a fucking retard, ok?Freakaloin wrote:and there is lots of evidence of explosions...u just gotta look for it...
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 1:23 pm
Where did you hear that it was already set with charges?R00k wrote:They went in while the building was burning and placed charges all through it to demo it? I've never heard of any fire department doing that. Usually if it's a fire they can't put out, they just let it burn out once it's evacuated.HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:There weren't explosives already in wtc 7. The fire department cordoned off the area and prepared things, then demolished the building.R00k wrote:Yes, the owner admitted it on national television.
Don't argue the point though, just because there were somehow explosives in WTC7 just waiting to be blown, doesn't mean that there is any way in hell there could have been anything of the sort in the other two buildings.
Trust me on this, because you're an idiot if you believe it.
Where did you hear that?
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 2:02 pm
I didn't - I just knew that it was demolished.
That's why I was asking where you heard about the charges being set at the time. I've never heard of that being done, so I assumed they were already in the building. If you have a reference that says they were placed the day of, I'd like to read it.
That's why I was asking where you heard about the charges being set at the time. I've never heard of that being done, so I assumed they were already in the building. If you have a reference that says they were placed the day of, I'd like to read it.
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 1:08 am
quite a drastic assumption no?
anyway i tried to find my source, it was from one of the many pages dedicated to wtc 7... basically a guy recounting his day, he is a reporter/photographer? He managed to get onto the ferry they were using to shuttle injured away for a while.
He later recounts being near wtc 7 and talks about the area around the building being cordoned off by the fire department as they were preparing to demo the building.
check out the wikipedia page on wtc 7 they mention something that I had never read before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
'In addition, the building's unusual architecture may have contributed to its collapse. It was built on top of an existing Con Ed substation, such that the building was cantilevered over the substation at the fifth floor.'
Of course there's still the cognitive disonance arising from the confusion over official claims, which from what i gather are that the building collapsed and was not demolished on purpose.
anyway i tried to find my source, it was from one of the many pages dedicated to wtc 7... basically a guy recounting his day, he is a reporter/photographer? He managed to get onto the ferry they were using to shuttle injured away for a while.
He later recounts being near wtc 7 and talks about the area around the building being cordoned off by the fire department as they were preparing to demo the building.
check out the wikipedia page on wtc 7 they mention something that I had never read before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
'In addition, the building's unusual architecture may have contributed to its collapse. It was built on top of an existing Con Ed substation, such that the building was cantilevered over the substation at the fifth floor.'
Of course there's still the cognitive disonance arising from the confusion over official claims, which from what i gather are that the building collapsed and was not demolished on purpose.