| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | ok so the firemen didnt just predict the building was unsafe, they also predicted that it would be a global collapse whilst running around and building fully involved in fire with no water to extinguish it and other reports were firemen were ordered out at 11.30 am that morning.
they somehow managed to asses the building whilst "fully involved" in fire with no water to extinguish it and predict global collapse which was relayed to the bbc who mistook the reports to mean it had alrady collapsed, but then in other reports after all this had happened they report firemen were ordered out of the building at 11.30am in the morning on 9/11 which was also just another mistake.
this is what we have to believe to believe the offical story and what critics are saying.
so the building was a rageing inferno the firemen risked their lives to asses by dodging fires with no water? or the building had limited fires meaning the firemen were able to get around and see all the damage and predict global collapse from these limited fires so the bbc could report it had collapsed by mistake.
it dosnt make any sense and critics need to make their minds up, was the fire bad? or not bad allowing firemen to run around inside even though reports say they were ordered out at 11.30 am because they had no water to fight the flames etc.
somebody explain and tell you story. jesus christ somebody needs to explain the situation because it can sound a bit contridictive.
the fire and smoke were bad = why the hell would firemen risk it with no water? can you predict global collapse from the outside of the building so the bbc can report it? |
You seem to be getting yourself as confused now as the situation clearly was on the day!
Who says any firemen went into the building? I do not remember seeing anything suggesting that. |
so they predicted global collapse from the outside of the building even though the strength is in the core?
or did they just predict the building was unsafe? meaning the bbc thought reports of the building being unsafe meant the building had collapsed? |
As far as I am aware, firemen did not go into the building, certainly I have not seen reports suggesting that. Look at the quotes I gave above and you will see that it looked distorted from the outside, and people looking at it thought it would collapse.
No one can tell you why the BBC got it wrong, but confused reports seems the most likely answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Batrabill
Banned
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 89
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry but "the most likely answer" cuts no mustard around here.
CD. Thermate. Dancing Israelis. "Pull it" (Jesus two words prove a conspiracy?) BBC c***-up.
Most likely answer is terrorists flew planes into buildings and some of them fell down. (Oh, and modern planes are incredibly complicated, but they are not hard to fly. I've seen total amateurs take off, fly, and land in simulators.)
Most likely, but then that would spoil your hobby. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Batrabill wrote: | I'm sorry but "the most likely answer" cuts no mustard around here.
CD. Thermate. Dancing Israelis. "Pull it" (Jesus two words prove a conspiracy?) BBC c***-up.
Most likely answer is terrorists flew planes into buildings and some of them fell down. (Oh, and modern planes are incredibly complicated, but they are not hard to fly. I've seen total amateurs take off, fly, and land in simulators.)
Most likely, but then that would spoil your hobby. |
so you think the issues of today that could have a major effect on everyones lives is just an hobby? 
if we are wrong then great i'd be over the blasted moon.
if we are right and your excusing every little thing for the sake of being right then god help us all and thanks for helping to ruin freedom and life as we know it.
i cannot believe people dont support a new investigastion to be 100% sure we are not right and your freedom is safe.
things dont add up and need offical explainations i would hardly call you offical to give the answers required to the many contridictions.
freedom and peace are at stake here it aint some game or hobby.
its getting the truth to know one way or another, and we cannot reach that point whilst people like yourself use this situation to get kicks and assume we are all a certain type of person when YOU dont know ME.
if i thought 9/11 added up i would'nt be here neither would the millions world wide be raising concerns. the only wacko's around here is yourself who cannot post a serious post debating evidence but rather only posts insults or imply that all here are just conspiracy theorists who will never change their minds if things could be explained. something you seem incapable off.
the number here who question 9/11 is reflective to how well crtics are doing in making us see the offical version is correct, you aint doing a very good jobs so far as you have to ignore facts to make the story believable, we however do not ignore those facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
just to add i dont see why asking questions to get opinons makes me any differant to anyone else. its about understanding the events some of which needs new evidence to understand properly.
the mere fact i post in this section means i am wanting your side of the arguement aswell as the otherside of the arguement to beable to make up my own mind as to what happened if things dont add up then when the debate arises ill ask the questions.
some questions i have had in the past have been resolved others are still left open for debate and others are pretty damning, so please try to avoid the branding as im just as intrested in your reasons than anybody else.
that dosnt mean i cannot question anything i see a problem with regardless of who says it. so are we in an age when questioning people about the events means your a nutjob? if so are you a nutjob if you ask questions when you think something dosnt add up? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apparently the BBC was not the only news organisation to make some mistakes in its reports that day. According to Wiki:
The attacks created widespread confusion across the United States. Unconfirmed and often contradictory reports were aired and published throughout the day. One of the most prevalent of these reported that a car bomb had been detonated at the U.S. State Department's headquarters, the Truman Building in Foggy Bottom, Washington, D.C. This erroneous report, picked up by the wire services, was reported on CNN and in a number of newspapers published that day. Soon after reporting for the first time on the Pentagon crash, CNN and other media also briefly reported that a fire had broken out on the Washington Mall. Another report went out on the AP wire, claiming that a Delta 767—Flight 1989—had been hijacked. This report, too, turned out to be in error; the plane was briefly thought to represent a hijack risk, but it responded to controllers and landed safely in Cleveland, Ohio.[17] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | Apparently the BBC was not the only news organisation to make some mistakes in its reports that day. According to Wiki:
The attacks created widespread confusion across the United States. Unconfirmed and often contradictory reports were aired and published throughout the day. One of the most prevalent of these reported that a car bomb had been detonated at the U.S. State Department's headquarters, the Truman Building in Foggy Bottom, Washington, D.C. This erroneous report, picked up by the wire services, was reported on CNN and in a number of newspapers published that day. Soon after reporting for the first time on the Pentagon crash, CNN and other media also briefly reported that a fire had broken out on the Washington Mall. Another report went out on the AP wire, claiming that a Delta 767—Flight 1989—had been hijacked. This report, too, turned out to be in error; the plane was briefly thought to represent a hijack risk, but it responded to controllers and landed safely in Cleveland, Ohio.[17] |
i appreciate that mistakes are made and obviously do happen , but they are usually corrected and the main problem i have overall is the building in question is stood there right behind her and nobody noticed? nobody? nobody pointed it out in the time it was stood there.
the bbc have people all over the world who are clued up on what buildings are what and not one person noticed? not even the new york correspondant? or did somebody notice? the connection was cut 5 minutes before it actually collapsed. i know you will excuse that as an techinacal fault and it could be but you are left thinking hhhhhmmmm.
i dont think the example above fits as the things in question were not on the screen at the time for all to see where they? and were also most likely corrected.
im telling you 9/11 was one bizarre day of mistakes by everyone from americas air defense to the media, all in one day. there is enough surely to warrent answers from offical sources regardless of how innocent the answers are, its just a pile of steaming mess an errors all reports conflicting witnesses conflicting etc etc. no wonder it hard to make sense of if you dont commit to what you believe before examining all of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Batrabill
Banned
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 89
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
This just about sums up how weird your thinking is. You are really confused that lots of mistakes were made by all kinds of people on September 11th.
Why does this confuse you? Life is messy. People frequently make mistakes.
The only people who don't make mistakes are the 9/11 organisers who mounted the most complicated multi-part, multi-phase operation using technology that had never been tested in real life (remote control planes, new CD technology) and made so few mistakes that there is no real evidence they did it.
Mission Impossible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Batrabill wrote: | This just about sums up how weird your thinking is. You are really confused that lots of mistakes were made by all kinds of people on September 11th.
Why does this confuse you? Life is messy. People frequently make mistakes.
The only people who don't make mistakes are the 9/11 organisers who mounted the most complicated multi-part, multi-phase operation using technology that had never been tested in real life (remote control planes, new CD technology) and made so few mistakes that there is no real evidence they did it.
Mission Impossible. |
so your saying there wasnt lots of mistakes made on 9/11?
the airport security?
the bbc report?
americas air defenses?
bbc report reporting hijackers were alive?
i could go on and on they are just a few examples, but you are denying mistakes were made? because i was saying 9/11 as a whole is full of them if thats what they are.
the only people who didnt make mistakes were 19 hijackers with boxcutters(flight 93 not reaching its target was not a mistake on the hijackers part but bravey on the passengers part wasnt it?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Batrabill wrote: | The only people who don't make mistakes are the 9/11 organisers who mounted the most complicated multi-part, multi-phase operation using technology that had never been tested in real life (remote control planes, new CD technology) and made so few mistakes that there is no real evidence they did it.
|
I don't know, the Pentagon show was a bit shoddy and looked like it was tagged on as an after-thought. Only full control of the scene and pliant eye-witnesses saved that debacle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
of course people trained to deal with these situations and who plan for them and run drills simulating them to pratice are always going to be confused. one question that i dont expect an answer on
why were drills being run on the exact same day simulating planes being crashed into the WTC's according to bush and co it was unexpected what happened on 9/11.
can you work out the chance of this drill being run on the same day it happens, maybe then that will give you a rough estimate as to why a lot of people dont trust what they have been told as this is just counting one coincidance and not the numerous others.
i think you will find the chances of the drill and attack happening on the same day are extreme, i might have more chance of winning the jackpot to myself on the lottery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: |
why were drills being run on the exact same day simulating planes being crashed into the WTC's according to bush and co it was unexpected what happened on 9/11.
can you work out the chance of this drill being run on the same day it happens, maybe then that will give you a rough estimate as to why a lot of people dont trust what they have been told as this is just counting one coincidance and not the numerous others.
i think you will find the chances of the drill and attack happening on the same day are extreme, i might have more chance of winning the jackpot to myself on the lottery. |
If there were drills running on the exact same day simulating planes being crashed into the WTC, it is the first I have heard of it. Please provide some reference, because I think you have got confused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Quote: | | For going on six years different agencies, NIST,FEMA The American Society of Civil Engineers, Popular propogandists tractor mag,"private individuals on here" etc. have huffed and puffed trying to rationalise this "huge elephant in the room" ...the near symetrical collapse CD style of WTC7 and fit it into the official 9/11 CT, producing a whole raft of imaginative and contadictory theories, now, this leaked BBC archive footage proves (if we discount clairvoyancy) someone was putting out forewarnings of 7's imminent collapse and therefore someone must have known WHY 7 collapsed, YES OR NO? |
Whilst I am in no way sympathetic to critics, I don't believe it is as cut and dried as 'yes or no'.
The world had just witnessed two massive steel framed buildings collapse due to apparent fire damage and aircraft impacts. I am not in a position to say that the witness statements who claim that WTC7 was....
1) On fire.
2) Damaged by failing masonry.
3) Its usual symmetrical angles were apparently somewhat skewed.
.....inaccurate or lies, so it is reasonable to conclude that certain individuals were anticipating WTC7's collapse.
In addition, the pressure on news networks on the day to be first with a breaking story would have been considerable and the variables that potentially point to this being not what it appears have yet to be discounted (in my opinion).
So, can we be 100% certain that the moving image behind the reporter is simply a view out of the window?
Can we also be certain that someone did not misread/mistype a report that generated the report being put out?
I am not standing by critics or looking for ways to shoot down this wonderful find, but it all seems too perfect and until things have been proven and the BBC respond with an official comeback, I am not counting any chickens. |
Who was the fireman/woman whose firefighter instincts led him/her(thank you mother) to predict the time wtc7 would collapse, almost symetrically CD style measured faster than gravity(911 eye witness dvd)over the first 100 metres of its fall, down to a 10-9-8...countdown (I'm reliably informed)? Was he/she decorated by the Whitehouse? if he/she wasn't there's no justice! The first two towers went down from fires and aeroplane impacts in appx' 1 and 2 hours, we're told, we're also told no high rise steel framed building in history has collapsed from fire, WTC7 had some debris impact of undisclosed severity (photos are classified info according to popmech' tool')and fires of debatable size and locality for 8 hours, that firefighter sure was a quick learner to make that precise collapse time calculation. I suggest he/she gets on his/her firetruck PDQ switches on the alarm and skidaddles all the way to NIST house and we can, at long last, effect closure to all this WTC7 a-wondering and a-pondering!
Sorry, this whole thing makes me naturally boorish and fascetious(sp?). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In all honesty I am completely mystified as to why the troof movement is getting so excited over this.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Who was the fireman/woman whose firefighter instincts led him/her(thank you mother) to predict the time wtc7 would collapse, almost symetrically CD style measured faster than gravity(911 eye witness dvd)over the first 100 metres of its fall, down to a 10-9-8...countdown (I'm reliably informed)? Was he/she decorated by the Whitehouse? if he/she wasn't there's no justice! The first two towers went down from fires and aeroplane impacts in appx' 1 and 2 hours, we're told, we're also told no high rise steel framed building in history has collapsed from fire, WTC7 had some debris impact of undisclosed severity (photos are classified info according to popmech' tool')and fires of debatable size and locality for 8 hours, that firefighter sure was a quick learner to make that precise collapse time calculation. |
Where does anybody (except you) suggest that the time of WTC7's collapse was ever predicted by the FDNY?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | In all honesty I am completely mystified as to why the troof movement is getting so excited over this. |
really? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Who was the fireman/woman whose firefighter instincts led him/her(thank you mother) to predict the time wtc7 would collapse, almost symetrically CD style measured faster than gravity(911 eye witness dvd)over the first 100 metres of its fall, down to a 10-9-8...countdown (I'm reliably informed)? Was he/she decorated by the Whitehouse? if he/she wasn't there's no justice! The first two towers went down from fires and aeroplane impacts in appx' 1 and 2 hours, we're told, we're also told no high rise steel framed building in history has collapsed from fire, WTC7 had some debris impact of undisclosed severity (photos are classified info according to popmech' tool')and fires of debatable size and locality for 8 hours, that firefighter sure was a quick learner to make that precise collapse time calculation. |
Where does anybody (except you) suggest that the time of WTC7's collapse was ever predicted by the FDNY? |
You did! on the first page of this thread, who was it put t about that 7 was coming down then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
Where does anybody (except you) suggest that the time of WTC7's collapse was ever predicted by the FDNY? |
You did! on the first page of this thread, who was it put t about that 7 was coming down then?[/quote]
I did ????
There's no mention of times there. Nothing like "The Salomon building's coming down at 5:21p.m." or "WTC7 will fall in the next 30 minutes". Just general predictions that something will take place at an unspecified time in the future. Which is the gist of what members of the FDNY in the vicinity of WTC7 were saying.
You're getting much too excited SH. Slow down a bit.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
Where does anybody (except you) suggest that the time of WTC7's collapse was ever predicted by the FDNY? |
You did! on the first page of this thread, who was it put t about that 7 was coming down then? |
I did ????
There's no mention of times there. Nothing like "The Salomon building's coming down at 5:21p.m." or "WTC7 will fall in the next 30 minutes". Just general predictions that something will take place at an unspecified time in the future. Which is the gist of what members of the FDNY in the vicinity of WTC7 were saying.
You're getting much too excited SH. Slow down a bit.[/quote]
It's claimed here http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207building7.htm
that there was a countdown to the collapse at 5.20pm NY time, why have NIST and all the oher players been unable to explain the collapse nearly 6 years after when someone on the day observed all the factors and(apparently)calculated it to the second? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And what was the source for the countdown story?
If you have a quality source I'd be interested, but if was an anonymous email sent from a hotmail account to a conspiracy theorist which nobody made any attempt to verify and which is completely uncorroborated by any other evidence, then I'm not impressed.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
It's claimed here http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207building7.htm
that there was a countdown to the collapse at 5.20pm NY time, why have NIST and all the oher players been unable to explain the collapse nearly 6 years after when someone on the day observed all the factors and(apparently)calculated it to the second? |
So it wasn't me, it was prisonplanet. Phew.
Ahah! It was the mysterious and anonymous EMT who emailed Dylan Avery wot claimed it !!
Well, that's good enough for me. I'm coming over to the light side. Where do I hand in the keys to my Black Helicopter?
Sheriton, do you believe every anonymous and unverifiable claim that appears on every CT site? It sounds like hard work fitting that much bilge into one brain. You must go dizzy.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz cynical about the prison planet link's 'kosher' credentials? how can someone with such a huge brain be a 911 commission report fundamentalist zealot at the same time? does not compute! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | ok so the firemen didnt just predict the building was unsafe, they also predicted that it would be a global collapse whilst running around and building fully involved in fire with no water to extinguish it and other reports were firemen were ordered out at 11.30 am that morning.
they somehow managed to asses the building whilst "fully involved" in fire with no water to extinguish it and predict global collapse which was relayed to the bbc who mistook the reports to mean it had alrady collapsed, but then in other reports after all this had happened they report firemen were ordered out of the building at 11.30am in the morning on 9/11 which was also just another mistake.
this is what we have to believe to believe the offical story and what critics are saying.
so the building was a rageing inferno the firemen risked their lives to asses by dodging fires with no water? or the building had limited fires meaning the firemen were able to get around and see all the damage and predict global collapse from these limited fires so the bbc could report it had collapsed by mistake.
it dosnt make any sense and critics need to make their minds up, was the fire bad? or not bad allowing firemen to run around inside even though reports say they were ordered out at 11.30 am because they had no water to fight the flames etc.
somebody explain and tell you story. jesus christ somebody needs to explain the situation because it can sound a bit contridictive.
the fire and smoke were bad = why the hell would firemen risk it with no water? can you predict global collapse from the outside of the building so the bbc can report it? |
You seem to be getting yourself as confused now as the situation clearly was on the day!
Who says any firemen went into the building? I do not remember seeing anything suggesting that. |
so they predicted global collapse from the outside of the building even though the strength is in the core?
or did they just predict the building was unsafe? meaning the bbc thought reports of the building being unsafe meant the building had collapsed? |
As far as I am aware, firemen did not go into the building, certainly I have not seen reports suggesting that. Look at the quotes I gave above and you will see that it looked distorted from the outside, and people looking at it thought it would collapse.
No one can tell you why the BBC got it wrong, but confused reports seems the most likely answer. |
so what was larry silverstein refering to when he said "pull it" if no firemen went into the raging inferno? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
Who was the fireman/woman whose firefighter instincts led him/her(thank you mother) to predict the time wtc7 would collapse, almost symetrically CD style measured faster than gravity(911 eye witness dvd)over the first 100 metres of its fall, down to a 10-9-8...countdown (I'm reliably ............. switches on the alarm and skidaddles all the way to NIST house and we can, at long last, effect closure to all this WTC7 a-wondering and a-pondering!
Sorry, this whole thing makes me naturally boorish and fascetious(sp?). |
Thank you for responding.
I have not the slightest clue what your response means, are you sure it relates to anything of mine you have quoted?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: |
so what was larry silverstein refering to when he said "pull it" if no firemen went into the raging inferno? |
I'm fairly sure Bushwacker is wrong.
Firemen did go into the building, e.g. :
"The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110472.PDF"
There's other stuff I've read but can't find in a hurry , including reports of lifts lying loose out of their lift shafts, but there was a search of WTC7 and an ordered evacuation.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
so what was larry silverstein refering to when he said "pull it" if no firemen went into the raging inferno? |
I'm fairly sure Bushwacker is wrong.
Firemen did go into the building, e.g. :
"The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110472.PDF"
There's other stuff I've read but can't find in a hurry , including reports of lifts lying loose out of their lift shafts, but there was a search of WTC7 and an ordered evacuation. |
so how bad was the fire if they were able to search the building with no water? what was they searching for? and why put lives at risk? i thought they thought it was going to collapse? or do firemen just go in and out of a burning building with no water when ever it suit the offical version?
like ive said before none of this makes any sense. and the confusion comes from truthers and critics all saying differant things and people not being able to picture properly what happened, even the offical story contridicts itself in parts if we take everything we have been told into account since 9/11 happened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: |
so how bad was the fire if they were able to search the building with no water? what was they searching for? and why put lives at risk? i thought they thought it was going to collapse? or do firemen just go in and out of a burning building with no water when ever it suit the offical version?
|
1. The fires were minor early on, so they searched the building.
2. They were searching for victims. Firemen do that.
3. They thought it was going to collapse later on.
4. Firemen exercise their professional judgement, no doubt.
Marky - that post of yours was the biggest pile of thoughtless drivel I've ever seen from a CTist. Please stop and think, just once in a while.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
so what was larry silverstein refering to when he said "pull it" if no firemen went into the raging inferno? |
I'm fairly sure Bushwacker is wrong.
Firemen did go into the building, e.g. :
"The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110472.PDF"
There's other stuff I've read but can't find in a hurry , including reports of lifts lying loose out of their lift shafts, but there was a search of WTC7 and an ordered evacuation. |
also i thought it was only "troofers" who didnt get their facts right and only "troofers" who are wrong, i was under the impression critics knew everything and didnt get things or facts wrong?
its hard to cover the lies when there are so many facts all saying differant things isnt it? or could it be their was soooooo much confusion on the day that a new investigastion IS needed to clarify exactly what happened as there are so many confusing reports that all defy logic when put into one story? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
so how bad was the fire if they were able to search the building with no water? what was they searching for? and why put lives at risk? i thought they thought it was going to collapse? or do firemen just go in and out of a burning building with no water when ever it suit the offical version?
|
1. The fires were minor early on, so they searched the building.
2. They were searching for victims. Firemen do that.
3. They thought it was going to collapse later on.
4. Firemen exercise their professional judgement, no doubt.
Marky - that post of yours was the biggest pile of thoughtless drivel I've ever seen from a CTist. Please stop and think, just once in a while. |
im not the one who keeps changing the story when new things come to light, ive never heard all of the above mentioned untill now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
so how bad was the fire if they were able to search the building with no water? what was they searching for? and why put lives at risk? i thought they thought it was going to collapse? or do firemen just go in and out of a burning building with no water when ever it suit the offical version?
|
1. The fires were minor early on, so they searched the building.
2. They were searching for victims. Firemen do that.
3. They thought it was going to collapse later on.
4. Firemen exercise their professional judgement, no doubt.
Marky - that post of yours was the biggest pile of thoughtless drivel I've ever seen from a CTist. Please stop and think, just once in a while. |
im not the one who keeps changing the story when new things come to light, ive never heard all of the above mentioned untill now. |
Nobody has "changed their story". Do some research before opening your mouth. The information has been out there for years.
If you depend totally on CT sites for your information you will never learn about this stuff.
Question : have you ever read
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
or
http://www.911myths.com/index.html
or
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
???
If not, why not ??? Give them as much time as you've given reading the CT sites. Is that fair? See you in 2 weeks ....
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
so how bad was the fire if they were able to search the building with no water? what was they searching for? and why put lives at risk? i thought they thought it was going to collapse? or do firemen just go in and out of a burning building with no water when ever it suit the offical version?
|
1. The fires were minor early on, so they searched the building.
2. They were searching for victims. Firemen do that.
3. They thought it was going to collapse later on.
4. Firemen exercise their professional judgement, no doubt.
Marky - that post of yours was the biggest pile of thoughtless drivel I've ever seen from a CTist. Please stop and think, just once in a while. |
im not the one who keeps changing the story when new things come to light, ive never heard all of the above mentioned untill now. |
Nobody has "changed their story". Do some research before opening your mouth. The information has been out there for years.
If you depend totally on CT sites for your information you will never learn about this stuff.
Question : have you ever read
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
or
http://www.911myths.com/index.html
or
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
???
If not, why not ??? Give them as much time as you've given reading the CT sites. Is that fair? See you in 2 weeks .... |
are you saying i should not pay attention to the commission report or NIST, FEMA ect? and should only trust websites?
maybe you should read the homepage and remind yourself why people are here. some of the stuff on those websites are not in the reports in question and/or are not explained. therefore they must agree a new report is needed that covers EVERYTHING.
we can trust sites that support the offical version but not those that dont? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
