9/11 truth now!

To my knowledge building 7's collapse actually started on the lower floors, and was in fact not a clean collapse.

Fire was raging in building 7 too, obviously not as bad as the twin towers, but considering the 2 buildings that no one thought would fall just fell down, if you were a fire chief, ect, you'd start ordered your men out of there too under fear it was going to collapse. They're policemen and firemen, not engineers and architects. They go by gut feeling. If you investigate further on both testimony and tapes, you'll actually see there was a great amount of structural groaning coming from the building which is why they ordered it evacuated.

How about a view of the giant gash in building 7?



or heck, just watch the whole video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW5TRGcJnAk"]YouTube- OBSOLETE VERSION 9/11: Caught on Tape: WTC Building 7 Damaged by Falling Debris from Twin Towers

anyone who saw that alone would start calling out a partial pancake collapse

 

They didn't say it was GOING to fall, they said it HAD fallen.
It's a key point to remember.
If you read "truth" sites or conspiracy sites like prison planet...
...those sites have made the point the BBC HAD said Building 7 was GOING to collapse not HAD collapsed.
That is incorrect.
Many also seem to have not acknowledged hindsight.
I do wonder how many people on those sites would have recognised Building 7 from image behind, Jane Standley.

The BBC's response was complete and utter crap, IMHO.
It was sheer incompetence.
Why not just say: "We didn't do enough research...we were a bit lazy."
If you listen the studio bound reporter he says: "Apparently it is only a few hundred yards away..." ("Apparently" being part of the excuse used in the response.)
That is true, but why say "apparently"...was BBC research that poor, in 2001, that they couldn't have pulled up a few detailed maps of the area?
They didn't say: "Apparently the Solomon building has collapsed."...they were pretty damn sure about it.
Did they not think it right to find out if their auto-cues were right?
The reporter on the ground probably hadn't even been in the area before, and didn't really know what she was talking about, merely parroting what was being told her, by even more clueless news editors.
Anybody who had knowledge of the area, and looked at the scene behind her, would have seen Building 7.
Even with out knowledgeable reporters I'm quite sure there were emails in that 20-25 minutes screaming: "It's behind you."
...and breaking news could have been: "WTC7 has not collapsed."
I do wonder what was said AFTER it actually HAD collapsed.
It would probably ruin the conspiracy if the BBC (after it HAD collapsed) had said: "Sorry folks we got that wrong."

The response states; "In the chaos and confusion of the day."
Neither reporter looked that flustered/chaotic or confused.
They looked like drones, mindless robotic drones.

It goes on to say:"I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services"

What she was seeing? If she had known where building 7 was she would have known it was right in front of her eyes.
What she was being told? IMHO, it was a poorly researched piece at the tail end of monumental day.
If it was information that was being monitored from "feeds and wires services" surely they have records of what feeds they were basing their reports on.
I'd like to know how long before her report they were reporting the same falsehood.

It still wasn't prior-knowledge, though, IMHO.
Because they were reporting it HAD collapsed and not it was GOING to collapse...all the while the building was in view for anybody - who knew the area - to see.

IMHO, it wasn't confusion...both reporters were making a calm annoucment...it didn't seem like the rush of breaking news or as it happens reporting.

What time did he say that?
What relevance has it to the BBC so-called conspiracy?

Who said that...?
I might have said something like: " "It's cheaper to go around Afghanistan"
I could elaborate if you point to who (and where) that was said. and it turns out to be me.

 

My mistake, BBC said the building collapsed. Because of chaos and confusion not hysterical confusion ok.
From the clip I viewed it seems like the Police Officer was clearing the area before the building fell. It is relevant because if it was really wired and flight 93 wasn't coming, somebody, I don't know who, would have to pull a plan B out of thier ass the size of idk.
Our friend TheMadcapSyd said that.(not the last part of my post)

 

I'd like to view the clip if you have it.
I'd be interested to know what time it was filmed.
If it was several hours before the BBC footage, then I'm quitting paying my licence fee and never watching the BBC again.
Ok, I'll not be doing that, but my earlier criticism might be well placed.

Why wait till approx 5:30pm?
Why not just blow the joint at say 10am?

 

Ill find it. I think it's in the movie called The Ultimate Con. Sounds fair and balanced right?

 

Thanks. With that I might be able to find it myself.

Yeah...really fair and balanced.

I kinda gathered that when you quoted: ""the whole building was going to blow up"
I'm sure in a fair and balanced way they are using that to say the building was blown up.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIgoXQWiSlM"]YouTube- The Ultimate Con - 911

 

Flight 93 makes no difference, it's established fact both from black box recording and just looking at the path it was taking that the plane w as heading for D.C. Tower 7 had raging fires in it, and firemen in the building had been hearing it groan structurally for some time, adding to the fact tens of thousands of tons of debris came crashing down around it when the twin towers fell. Your move as a brigade leader after no one was found in tower 7 would be to move your men out there. Remember there was absolute chaos at ground zero, and at this time the entire area would've still been covered in a thick haze of dust. You're an officer trying to organize your men and people coming out of the tower say it's groaning a lot, you're not going to make sure you use proper English on your walky talkies, you're going to shout "move, move, it's gonna blow, get the hell out of there"

Only after the fact sitting in the calm of their living rooms can people forget what was really going on that day and come to the conclusions people make about their conversations.

 

This thread has been unusually quiet lately

 

http://www.redress.cc/americas/pjballes20100203

 

I've been wondering where you've been

 

Again I was mistaken. The people in the movie were firemen, you cannot tell what building they are outside of although it looks like the towers for some reason, and were yelling "there's a secondary device in the building" not "it's gonna blow".
Now are there good explanations for the hot spots in the building wreckage? If we are using c'mon nows, realize the fire was only on 4 or 5 floors in the towers. That makes roughly 5% of the building mass. Granted there are combustible materials in offices such as carpets, office cubicles, printer paper, what else?
I think the fires were recorded at 1500 degrees about 5 weeks later. Would there have been enough jet fuel to burn these fires so hot for so long? How long would a fully fueled plane fly for?
I'm sure the official account makes no reference to molten metal found at the bottom of the collapse sites but Ground Zero workers describe finding pools of molten steel.

Another great point I want to ask is why wouldn't the money leaders of the world not devise a plan such as 9/11 if they knew the majority of "good patriots" would never question such an absurdity.

Please re-direct me to past topics from this thread which anyone feels I have neglected to comment on.

 

To brush on the other topic, fully loaded planes do have a lot of fuel, but it must be remembered it's the same thing with starting any kind of fire, normally it's starting it that's the hard part. Once the fuel catches on fire and the temperature gets hot enough it doesn't matter what fuel is left, everything in the building is now kindling from the fuel being used as an accelerant to start the original inferno.

Well..............why would they? Don't you think is a bit paranoid, almost cartoonish? Leaders of banks sitting around plotting mass destruction?

 

Not the leaders of banks, I mean much wealthier people. Remember that estimate everyone seems to know about 10% of the population owns 90% of the money. The world is overpopulating and it seems measures are being slowly taken to further oppress the poor and unstable.

Is it a fact that no one has ever done something that they didn't want to for money?
Is it a fact that key office holders in the Government have never lied to people?

Not to stray too far off topic but did anyone see the news reports from the night of the Murrah building bombing. The reporter was noting how useful the materials from the unexploded bombs inside the building would be good for finding the guilty party.
I know you hate Alex Jones but the news was the news.

 

Well yes it'd be useful because different bomb makers have their own designs, traits, origin of their materials, ect.

And yes, wealthy people do own most of the wealth. But you are one of them. You are by far wealthier then 90% of the Earth. It doesn't change the fact though, what good would this do for them? Do you not recall the world's financial markets going into free fall following the attack. Not the best way to protect your money.

 

Oil companies do make record profits but it's supply and demand, they were making record profits, Exonn for example also paid more then $30 billion in taxes in 2008
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2008/db2008051_596535.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_news+%2B+analysis, literally near a 50% tax rate.
That does mean they paid more in taxes alone then about 15% of the country combined did since the lowest levels usually wind up paying near no federal tax.

Oil companies make money because we use tons of oil, it's plan and simple, we waste resources, and make huge demand for it, then complain when said companies make so much money.

People could've been driving more fuel efficient cars for decades and had more money themselves, but somehow the lesson from the 70's oil crisis was quickly forgotten.

 

Brian Becker -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 28]
So I think that the building was really kind of starting to melt. We were -- like, the melt down was beginning. The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.
Interview, 10/09/01, New York Times

Do demolition companies load just a few floors with detonators now? It seems like a waste of resources to do it the old fashioned way when the towers proved it only needs a small part of the building to have mechanical failure to fall.

 

“[Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.] explained to me [Lavello] that, ‘many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. ‘There were definitely bombs in those buildings,’ he told me.”

Isaac also addressed the FBI gag order in an article by Greg Syzmanski, saying “It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear or retaliation or losing their jobs.” He mentions that the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials prevented them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11. Syzmansky praised Isaacs in a highly interesting article titled One-Man Investigative Team.

 

If this conspiracy exists as some people claim, hundreds if not thousands and thousands of people in the NYPD and NYFD, not to mention a lot of workers in the buildings knew about it. Why do we believe the words of a few people who are just extremely paranoid or just seeking attention vs everyone else.