TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 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 33 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

Just in case you're denying, watch the video and see for yourself - they said SEVERAL times, and put it in text that WTC 7 HAS COLLAPSED ALREADY, while for at least 15 minutes it was still standing fine. How come BBC got the news before everyone else did? So, I guess it was PULLED, eh, as Larry Silverstein said it well ;-) Words and pictures dont lie, you do!

BY THE WAY, GOOGLE DOESNT HAVE THAT FOOTAGE I LINKED YOU, THEY BRING IT DOWN SOON AFTER. THIS VIDEO IS FROM A DIFFERENT WEBSITE, AND A FULL VERSION ACTUALLY.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Just in case you're denying, watch the video and see for yourself - they said SEVERAL times, and put it in text that WTC 7 HAS COLLAPSED ALREADY, while for at least 15 minutes it was still standing fine. How come BBC got the news before everyone else did? So, I guess it was PULLED, eh, as Larry Silverstein said it well ;-) Words and pictures dont lie, you do! BY THE WAY, GOOGLE DOESNT HAVE THAT FOOTAGE I LINKED YOU, THEY BRING IT DOWN SOON AFTER. THIS VIDEO IS FROM A DIFFERENT WEBSITE, AND A FULL VERSION ACTUALLY.

thats right. because in a climate of "terror attack" silverstein would have the final word on what was to happen and all

yes, so the BBC made a fucking mistake. why does everything have to be more than meets the eye to you people? what is wrong with you, honestly?

you post this bullshit, then dont even offer the simplest of plausible explanations for the HOW and WHY the BBC got wind of anything secret. we're just meant to accept that so-called prior knowledge was imparted to them by the shady powers that be.

you'd all be more convincing if you could actually explain in some kind of rational way, exactly how these things come to pass instead of crying "conspiracy" at every anomaly from that day.

the simple fact is everybody knew that WTC7 was going to collapse. thats why they pulled the fire crew out, thats why they prevented anyone from going near it FOR SEVERAL HOURS before it collapsed. that someone might have reported that it had collapsed ahead of time is hardly noteworthy. but you'll all grasp this straw like you have all the other innocuous occurences you see the devil behind.

Where is the cigarette smoking man when we need him?!

In case you think they got it out of context - the building was standing since the morning's attacks, and quite coincidentally it was in the evening that media like BBC got the heads up that WTC 7 is going down. Hmmm ... look at the time frame too. Thats not a coincidence, the information was fed to BBC, who aired it too soon than what it was intended to be. If only they did the same thing for the two main WTC buildings, the warning, so that at least most people could have been evacuated and we would have had less casualties ... fucking bastards - the media was given the message, but not the people. Ummm, they evacuated people from ALL neighbouring buildings, and most of them stand still to the day. But the WTC complex of these all buildings went down. And I dont think its a coincidence of BBC and actual building going down happened almost at the same time, I mean is BBC some kind of psychic news media?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium If only they did the same thing for the two main WTC buildings, the warning, so that at least most people could have been evacuated and we would have had less casualties ... fucking bastards - the media was given the message, but not the people.

yeah, whatever you say. the government risked everything to tip off the BBC ahead of time.

man, the illogical crap you guys are forced to believe so that the smaller details make some semblance of sense is truly incredible.

i know if i was designing a top secret attack the media would be the first id let know all about it! you know, so i could keep it secret and all! hahahahahahahaha.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, whatever you say. the government risked everything to tip off the BBC ahead of time. man, the illogical crap you guys are forced to believe so that the smaller details make some semblance of sense is truly incredible. i know if i was designing a top secret attack the media would be the first id let know all about it! you know, so i could keep it secret and all! hahahahahahahaha.

In the video, the reporter clearly says "the salomon brothers building HAS JUST collapsed" meaning very recently. And in recent time after the lady reporter was cut off, the building did go down. You think they were guessing? You think they pulled the straw out of the hat? You think they made the story up for the sake of having fun? Is 9/11 a joke that BBC wanted to play, many hours after the original buildings went down and then all of a sudden BBC decides to choose that the building collapsed while all signs point to that its nowhere near collapse? Common sense is your enemy, 6 hours after the attack, only the government and media knew the building was going to collapse. LOL, from fire??? Pffft, give me a break - the report says that FIRE CAUSED WTC7 to collapse, not your weakened structure butthead.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium In the video, the reporter clearly says "the salomon brothers building HAS JUST collapsed" meaning very recently. And in recent time after the lady reporter was cut off, the building did go down. You think they were guessing? You think they pulled the straw out of the hat? You think they made the story up for the sake of having fun? Is 9/11 a joke that BBC wanted to play, many hours after the original buildings went down and then all of a sudden BBC decides to choose that the building collapsed while all signs point to that its nowhere near collapse? Common sense is your enemy, 6 hours after the attack, only the government and media knew the building was going to collapse. LOL, from fire??? Pffft, give me a break - the report says that FIRE CAUSED WTC7 to collapse, not your weakened structure butthead.

fuck youre an idiot.

firstly, the reporter (shock horror!) made a mistake. who knows what was happening at ground zero. it was chaos. perhaps they confused it with the mariott hotel building. i dont know. but the idea that the govt tipped off the media is beyond stupid.

no, i dont think they were guessing. i think they made a mistake reporting facts about a building that EVERYONE with any expertise in the area knew was gonna happen.

"only the government and media" knew? what the fuck are you talking about halfwit? the fucking FIREFIGHTERS FUCKING KNEW HOURS BEFOREHAND. you know- the guys standing right next to it, fighting the damned fires? the guys responsible for the clean up and rescue? they stopped fighting the fires in the building in early afternoon as it was a lost cause. theres a plethora of evidence out there to show this, if you crazy fuckheads would bother to look.

bullshit. the combination of fire AND the weakened structure caused the building to give way.

but hey, youre the one that dismissed fire smoke from WTC7 as merely the dustcloud from WTC1&2, even though that shot was taken HOURS later.

you people are so full of shit.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN fuck youre an idiot. ...beyond stupid. .what the fuck are you talking about halfwit? the fucking FIREFIGHTERS FUCKING KNEW HOURS BEFOREHAND. if you crazy fuckheads would bother to look. bullshit. you people are so full of shit.

LOL, you've got the most convincing tone and choice of words PKC .

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN fuck youre an idiot. firstly, the reporter (shock horror!) made a mistake. who knows what was happening at ground zero. it was chaos. perhaps they confused it with the mariott hotel building. i dont know. but the idea that the govt tipped off the media is beyond stupid. no, i dont think they were guessing. i think they made a mistake reporting facts about a building that EVERYONE with any expertise in the area knew was gonna happen. "only the government and media" knew? what the fuck are you talking about halfwit? the fucking FIREFIGHTERS FUCKING KNEW HOURS BEFOREHAND. you know- the guys standing right next to it, fighting the damned fires? the guys responsible for the clean up and rescue? they stopped fighting the fires in the building in early afternoon as it was a lost cause. theres a plethora of evidence out there to show this, if you crazy fuckheads would bother to look. bullshit. the combination of fire AND the weakened structure caused the building to give way. but hey, youre the one that dismissed fire smoke from WTC7 as merely the dustcloud from WTC1&2, even though that shot was taken HOURS later. you people are so full of shit.

Problem with things like this is...people are going to cite sources from the camp which THEY BELIEVE is correct. So the liberals will always cite liberal conspiracy sources.

It's not a cover up...but I'm tired of arguing.

quote:

Originally posted by xstalkrx Problem with things like this is...people are going to cite sources from the camp which THEY BELIEVE is correct. So the liberals will always cite liberal conspiracy sources. It's not a cover up...but I'm tired of arguing.

And the other side will always site official conspiracy sources. Since when was Steven Jones a liberal conspiracy theorist? He's [was] a Physics PHD at BYU who actually voted for Bush in 2000. And after he published his paper investigating the WTC collapse, he first was banned from teaching, and then got kicked out of the University altogether. Many if not most of the people proposing the controlled demolition theory are actually conservatives. So there you go.

There were three collapses of buildings that day in NYC. So far that reporter should have seen two with one on the way. No one is seeing it in that timeframe.

That reporter is putting the third collapse into past tense when it hasn't even happened yet.

BTW There are NO photos or videos of the whole or major part of the south face of WTC7. The only pictures I have seen are the ones with the dust clouds from the WTC1/2 collapses covering WTC7. Those are side shots and not full face on. If people did shoot any pictures at Ground Zero they never show any of the south side of WTC7.

Gladio and state sponsored false-flag terrorism.

But we can continue with the battered wife syndrome when it comes to all that. The "Even though my husband beats me but he's still a good man" nonsense.

Besides, if the other side of the WTC7 was terribly on fire, burning heavily, there'd be video crews and lots of pictures to show the huge fires by sensationalism-hungry media, as we have plenty of bloody pictures of WTC1/2 and Pentagon to show for. But WTC7 collapse due to fire is theories from the pro-government agenda, as its obvious no steel-frame building like that heavy-steel nerve center (intelligence, FBI, etc.) of New York ever collapsed. This was a specially designed building to withstand earthquakes and fires, so its so silly to consider how lack of even photographic evidence to suggest that the building was heavily on fire, other than few small pockets of fire that somehow sprinklers didnt put out, oddly enough.

+1

My sentiments exactly. Just worded different. You're on point.

This is an excellent topic, and one I think people think too little about. What makes me believe there was a conspiracy, or at least, prior knowledge of the attacks, was the third building collapsing, in perfect form, without anything actually hitting it. That just seems odd. I'm not an expert, but it seems odd.
There wouldn't have been the need for a huge conspiracy, just a couple of people at a high level within the pentagon capable of supplying knowledge and funding for those involved. It's pretty much a given that JFK was shot by the CIA, so why not something a little more sinister.?
Also, on any given day, at the time of the attacks, there is normally something like fifty thousand or so people in the two buildings...so why on this day were there only twenty five hundred or so killed? Again, I haven't really done any research on the subject, so my opinions don't count, as far as I'm concerned.
My belief is that a person doesn't have a right to an opinion if it's not an informed one.

I've always have said if someone can believe in Atlantis, aliens, UFO's and other theories then they have room for one more.

If they can believe in the conspiracy that Saddam� had nukes, that Stalin and Mao killed tens of millions in state sponsored terror, they can make room for one more conspiracy.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 If they can believe in the conspiracy that Saddam� had nukes, that Stalin and Mao killed tens of millions in state sponsored terror, they can make room for one more conspiracy.

Some people insist on "official" approval of it first, you know, kind of like the one you just mentioned

quote:

New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani recounts, �I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barclay Street, which was right there, with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for ten, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.� [ABC News, 9/11/2001]

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

quote:

Originally posted by xstalkrx http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Don't bother reading the thread now! It's not like anyone posted that already!

quote:

Originally posted by misterpink Again, I haven't really done any research on the subject, so my opinions don't count, as far as I'm concerned.

glad you realise that.

quote:

[i]Originally posted by Magnetonium/i] Besides, if the other side of the WTC7 was terribly on fire, burning heavily, there'd be video crews and lots of pictures to show the huge fires by sensationalism-hungry media, as we have plenty of bloody pictures of WTC1/2 and Pentagon to show for. But WTC7 collapse due to fire is theories from the pro-government agenda, as its obvious no steel-frame building like that heavy-steel nerve center (intelligence, FBI, etc.) of New York ever collapsed. This was a specially designed building to withstand earthquakes and fires, so its so silly to consider how lack of even photographic evidence to suggest that the building was heavily on fire, other than few small pockets of fire that somehow sprinklers didnt put out, oddly enough.

oh i see! so no photos is evidence that the government planted explosives in the building!.

again, i challenge you to give me some kind of valid reason for ignoring the testimony of firefighters there on the day, and their assessment that WTC7 was gutted by a massive fireball. give me just one reason and ill be happy

quote:

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we�ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

link

just one of many such quotes from the experts there on the day. i still havent heard ANY of you give me a reason for your instant dismissal of such evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN

Hey we don't expect you to be with the good guys since you are a 20 level chaotic-evil mage mate! Most of us here are lawful-good paladins and because we have "aura of protection", we can instantly sense the evil conspiracies (and persons) and put an end to them with our holy swords!

quote:

i challenge you to give me some kind of valid reason for ignoring the testimony of firefighters there on the day, and their assessment that WTC7 was gutted by a massive fireball. give me just one reason and ill be happy

It seems like you are ignoring the many more testimony's from firefighters regarding the foreknowledge of WTC7's collapse. If there was a massive fire in WTC7 then so be it. This same fire did not bring the building down though because only bombs can do it in approx 6.5 seconds.


Reports of Foreknowledge of the Collapse of Building 7 in the Oral Histories


Joseph Cahill -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
The reason we were given for why we were moving was that 7 World Trade Center was going to collapse or was at risk of collapsing. So we must have been somewhere in this area where we would have had a problem with that. But I honestly don't remember.
...
They wanted us to move the treatment sector because of 7 World Trade Center was imminently to collapse, which, of course, it did.
Interview, 10/15/2001, New York Times

Tiernach Cassidy -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.), Engine 3
Then, like I said, building seven was in eminent collapse. They blew the horns. They said everyone clear the area until we got that last civilian out. We tried to give another quick search while we could, but then they wouldn't let us stay anymore. So we cleared the area. ... So yeah, then we just stayed on Vesey until building seven came down.
Interview, 12/30/2001, New York Times

Pete Castellano -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.), Ladder 149
We were ordered down from the tower ladder because of a possible collapse at Tower 7.
Interview, 12/28/2001, New York Times

Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.), Battalion 13
So we started heading over to where Building 7 was at and they were like Building 7 is going to collapse, you can't go over there, this and that, and there was another building that they thought was going to collapse that was like right behind the triage center, the building that we were in.
Interview, 1/23/2002, New York Times

Frank Congiusta -- Battalion Fire Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
While we were searching the subbasements, they decided that Seven World Trade Center, which was across the street, was going to collapse. So they called us out.
...
When I came out, they were calling us on the radio to tell us to get out. Then I reported that the search was negative, and then they wouldn't let anybody near the site pretty much, because Seven World Trade Center was going to come down.
Interview, 1/8/2002, New York Times

Louis Cook -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
We got to Chambers and Greenwich, and the chief turns around and says, 'There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker.' We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.
...
We hear over the fire portable, 'Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse.' Mark Steffens starts yelling, 'Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse.'
...
We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake.
Interview, 10/17/2001, New York Times

Frank Cruthers -- Fire Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
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. Thre was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolands and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed.
Interview, 10/31/2001, New York Times

Roy David -- Fire Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.), Battalion 8
At Pace University we had -- we set up -- I'm sorry, we set up in that lobby of that building, the lobby and the actual whole first floor. There was a threat of collapse of building number seven, so 225, we had to evacuate it.
Interview, 10/12/2001, New York Times

Frank Fellini -- Fire Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
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. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. 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, New York Times

Brian Fitzpatrick -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.), Ladder 22
We were then positioned on Vesey Street between North End and the West Side Highway because there was an imminent collapse on 7 World Trade, and it did collapse.
Interview, 12/6/2001, New York Times

Joseph Fortis -- E.M.T (E.M.S.), Battalion 13
When the third building came down, we were on that corner in front of the school, and everybody just stood back. They pulled us all back at the time, almost about an hour before it, because they were sure -- they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe.
Interview, 11/9/2001, New York Times

Ray Goldbach -- Fire Captain (F.D.N.Y.), Executive Assistant to the Fire Commissioner
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, New York Times

George Holzman -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.), Ladder 47
We stayed there for quite sometime when I don't even know who, I think it was someone, Lieutenant Lowney spoke to, asked us to leave the area, they were concerned about 7 World Trade Center collapsing.
Interview, 1/17/2002, New York Times

Edward Kennedy -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.), Engine 44
That was the only Mayday that I remember, and to tell you the truth, the only guy that really stands out in my mind that I remember being on the radio was Chief Visconti.
...
I remember him screaming about 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down, just get the hell out of the way, everybody get away from it, make sure you're away from it, that's an order, you know, stuff like that.
Interview, 1/17/2002, New York Times

Matthew Long -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.), Ladder 43
And at that point they were worried that 7 was coming down so they were calling for everyone to back out.
So I waited for -- we waied for the boss, Lieutenant Rohan, in the middle of the rubble and we all walked out together back to the West Side Highway and pretty much hung out by the marina when 7 came down.
...
Because they were just adamant about 7 coming down immediately. I think we probably got out of that rubble and 18 minutes later is when 7 came down.
Interview, 10/9/2001, New York Times

Thomas McCarthy -- Fire Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
So when I get to the command post, they just had a flood of guys standing there. They were just waiting for 7 to come down.
...
I made it down Vesey Street to just in front of the overpass of 7 World Trade. People were saying don't stand under there, it's going to come down.
...
So at that point we were a little leery about how the bridge was tied in, so no one was really going onto it, and then they were also saying 7 was going to come down. They chased everyone off the block.
Interview, 10/11/2001, New York Times

Kevin McGovern -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.), Engine 53
At that time Seven World Trade Center was burning and was in danger of collapsing. After a while the lieutentant said, "Let's move, let's get out of here, let's take a break."
Actually I think at that point just as we were leaving, guys -- I don't know who it was. I guess it was a chief was saying clear the area, because they were worried about number Seven World Trade Center coming down and burying guys who were digging.
So we basically went back to the rig, because they were clearing that area out. It took about three hours for Seven World Trade Center to actually come down. So we were off to the side.
Interview, 12/11/2001, New York Times

Vincent Massa -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.), Engine 64
At this point Seven World Trade Center was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down.
...
I remember later on in the day as we were waiting for seven to come down, they kept backing us up Vesey, almost like a full block. They were concerned about seven coming down, and they kept changing us, establishing a collapse zone and backing us up.
Interview, 12/4/2001, New York Times

Daniel Nigro -- Department Cheif (F.D.N.Y.)
The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and 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, New York Times

Christopher Patrick Murray -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.), Engine 205
Probably about 4:00 o'clock, 5:00 o'clock, our radios went dead, because we heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down and I think at 5:30 that came down.
Interview, 12/12/2001, New York Times

William Ryan -- Fire Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o'clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, we've got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there.
...
So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that's when 7 collapsed.
Interview, 10/18/2001, New York Times

Thomas Smith -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
They backed me off the rig because seven was in dead jeopardy, so they backed everybody off and moved us to the rear end of Vesey Street. We just stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down.
Interview, 12/6/2001, New York Times

Robert Sohmer -- Fire Captain (F.D.N.Y.)
As the day went on they started worrying about 7 World Trade Center collapsing and they ordered an evacuation from that area so at that time, we left the area with the other companies, went back to the command post on Broadway
...
We were about to proceed our operation there and this was in the afternoon, I would say approximately maybe 2:00 roughly, where we started to operate and then they asked us to fall back again due to the potential of 7 World Trade Center collapsing.
Interview, 1/17/2002, New York Times

James Wallace -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
They were saying building seven was going to collapse, so we regrouped and went back to our rig. We went to building four or three; I don't know. We were going to set up our tower ladder there. They said no good because building seven is coming down.
Interview, 12/29/2001, New York Times

Rudolf Weindler -- Fire Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.
Interview, 1/15/2002, New York Times

Decosta Wright -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
They said -- we were like, are you guys going to put that fire out? I was like, you know, they are going to wait for it to burn down and it collapsed.
...
Yes, so basically they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand.
...
5 blocks. 5 blocks away. We still could see. Exactly right on point, the cloud just stopped right there. Then when that building was coming down, the same thing, that same rumbling.
Interview, 10/11/2001, New York Times


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evi...eknowledge.html

WOW!

firefighters, arguable experts in buildings likely to collapse from structural & fire damage, knew that building 7 was going to collapse after being gutted by fire! holy foresight batman!!!

you really are an idiot. if you go back a few pages, you'll see me saying everyone "in the know" knew it was gonna come down. the thing was creaking and bulging dangerously. maybe the explosives were weighing it to one side? .

cretinrot

and stop repeating known falsehoods.

quote:

This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.

http://debunking911.com/pull.htm

the problem with you idiots is you dont do ANY research at all concerning contrary viewpoints. i at least spent a good year reading/watching conspiracy rubbish provided by the original starter of this thread.

youre either a bad researcher or a liar. you choose.

There are no other trained observers than that of the firefighters and other first responders.

But there are always those that seem to know more than a paid professional who's been plying their trade or skills for years.

So if one firefighter says he heard explosions a person would say "Yeah right, you heard squat". Now if many firefighters said they heard explosions then you would say "Really? Where or when?".

But let's assume they don't know what they heard and some troll knows what they heard. There would be no argument when this assumption is taken. Because for obvious reasons, trained professionals know more than the average troll.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 So if one firefighter says he heard explosions a person would say "Yeah right, you heard squat". Now if many firefighters said they heard explosions then you would say "Really? Where or when?". But let's assume they don't know what they heard and some troll knows what they heard. There would be no argument when this assumption is taken. Because for obvious reasons, trained professionals know more than the average troll.

where is anyone saying they know what the firemen heard? we're talking about firemen seeing fire. im reasonably sure its safe to take their word at face value, given that they are firefighters and all. dozens of firefighters have stated the mess that was WTC7, im challenging those here to justify their decision to categorically deny such evidence.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.