have a read of this ..proof of the global conspiracy
http://www.bearpit.net/index.php?showtopic=4313
-FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/27302.htm
oh and can i ask you to explain why NORAD was ordered to stand-down during the morning of 9/11, the first time in its 50 odd years of existance.
Originally posted by Deano
http://www.bearpit.net/index.php?showtopic=4313
-FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/27302.htm
The bearpit.net site is not accesable. The info from arcticbeacon.com offers no fact, just heresay and speculation. It talks about facts, but never lists them, i.e.:
Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11. -and 10,000 gallons of jet fuel has never been dumped on a highrise before after that high rise was hit by a jet airplane.
The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small. - uhm, no they were not, or may I say, relative to what?
WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds. That's what happens when two of the largest buildings in the world collapse beside you. It's called structural compromise.
WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams. And those raging fires were not made hotter by the additions of Jet fuel, they are also vastly different structural designs, not to mention that their structure was not compromised by the collision of airplanes.
In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that. "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it. That was an opinion, not an order. once again they feed you this information hoping you will add 2 and 2 and get 5.
It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting. Pure jet fuel fires yes, but not a masive fire first fueled by jet fuel and then sustained by the building structure itself. A fuel only fire wouold not have been as big as a problem, additional accelerants and sustainable fuel is and was.
Come on Deano. No hard facts, and the crap that you put forth is easily explained away.
Originally posted by Deano
oh and kharma ,just becuase an article is hosted on a conspiracy website dosent mean its origins are from the conspiracy website itself
But they only put articles that distort facts to back their claims. EVERY SINGLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION that you have given anyone to read is from a conspiracy site.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
The bearpit.net site is not accesable. The info from arcticbeacon.com offers no fact, just heresay and speculation. It talks about facts, but never lists them, i.e.:Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11. -and 10,000 gallons of jet fuel has never been dumped on a highrise before after that high rise was hit by a jet airplane.
The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small. - uhm, no they were not, or may I say, relative to what?
WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds. That's what happens when two of the largest buildings in the world collapse beside you. It's called structural compromise.
WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams. And those raging fires were not made hotter by the additions of Jet fuel, they are also vastly different structural designs, not to mention that their structure was not compromised by the collision of airplanes.
In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that. "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it. That was an opinion, not an order. once again they feed you this information hoping you will add 2 and 2 and get 5.
It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting. Pure jet fuel fires yes, but not a masive fire first fueled by jet fuel and then sustained by the building structure itself. A fuel only fire wouold not have been as big as a problem, additional accelerants and sustainable fuel is and was.
Come on Deano. No hard facts, and the crap that you put forth is easily explained away.
wtc 7 had nothing wrong with it!
it would take much longer for the towers to falls..it fell too quick
Originally posted by KharmaDog
And your opinion is based on.....................
Larry Silverstein insured the WTC buildings against terroist attack 3 months before 9/11 happened
wtc7 was miles away from the two main buildings! the buildings silverstein didnt own, didnt collapse!...the main towers fell onto another tower and sustained little damage..wtc 7 supposedly had a small fire..then they demolished it
but for some reason there was a media blackout on this fact
Larry Silverstein insured the WTC buildings against terroist attack 3 months before 9/11 happened
http://www.rense.com/general17/eyewitnessreportspersist.htm
its tells that news reporters and eye witnesses witnessed explosions on ground level before the building began to collapse
rationally explain it
Despite reports from numerous eyewitnesses and experts, including news reporters on the scene, who heard or saw explosions immediately before the collapse of the World Trade Center, there has been virtual silence in the mainstream media.Television viewers watching the horrific events of Sept. 11 saw evidence of explosions before the towers collapsed. Televised images show what appears to be a huge explosion occurring near ground level, in the vicinity of the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building, known as WTC 7, prior to the collapse of the first tower.
Van Romero, an explosives expert and former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech, said on Sept. 11, "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse."
Originally posted by KharmaDog
rense.com, nuff said
so they are lying about the witnesses? 🙄
o what if its Rense.com? Whats you point? Are you saying Rense has gone and made the whole lot up in his fuking head or something?
Besides, just becuase the guys website delves beyond the tunnel-visioned narrow-minded view of the world most people have suddenly makes him a crap source?
I'd love to hear you explain you're logic on that one.
Originally posted by whirlysplat
doesn't have to unless thee reporters are named and credible 😄
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/eyewitness.html
names of the witnesses
Edmund McNally, WTC 2 victim, 97th floor
Edmund McNally phoned his wife Liz twice following the aircraft impact. Mr McNally said in his second phone call "Liz, this was a terrorist attack. I can hear explosions below me.''
Louie Cacchioli, a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem
On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.
Kim White, WTC 1 survivor, on 80th floor at time of impact
We got down as far as the 74th floor [...] Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell.
The above account ties in with the following news broadcast:
9/11 NBC News broadcast
211KB mp3 - to download file right click the link and select 'Save Target As'
"Shortly after 9 o'clock [...] [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.
One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building."
Originally posted by Deano
Despite reports from numerous eyewitnesses and experts, including news reporters on the scene, who heard or saw explosions immediately before the collapse of the World Trade Center, there has been virtual silence in the mainstream media.Television viewers watching the horrific events of Sept. 11 saw evidence of explosions before the towers collapsed. Televised images show what appears to be a huge explosion occurring near ground level, in the vicinity of the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building, known as WTC 7, prior to the collapse of the first tower.
Van Romero, an explosives expert and former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech, said on Sept. 11, "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse."
1. taken from rense.com
2. No names of eyewitnesses, experts or news reporters
3."Television viewers watching the horrific events of Sept. 11 saw evidence of explosions before the towers collapsed." Show the footage. However, it better not be of the percussive base displacement that occurs on any highraise upon the weakening of it's superstructure.
4. The only websites that Van Romero's comments come up on when googled are conspiracey sites. His comments are not acknowledged ANYWHERE ELSE.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
1. taken from rense.com2. No names of eyewitnesses, experts or news reporters
3."Television viewers watching the horrific events of Sept. 11 saw evidence of explosions before the towers collapsed." Show the footage. However, it better not be of the percussive base displacement that occurs on any highraise upon the weakening of it's superstructure.
4. The only websites that Van Romero's comments come up on when googled are conspiracey sites. His comments are not acknowledged ANYWHERE ELSE.
1: so what?
2: just named em
3: find it
4: link
your arguments are aboslutely foundationaly flawed and delusional
heres van dmoero http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/experts/