9/11 - Firefighters NYFD say Explosives brought down Towers
 

This is amazing to watch. I sure hope the new movie coming out has some of this stuff in it.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=fKdvl--1Dt0

keep the truth alive~!!!

Whats amazing is the firefighters had to sue in court to get the tapes released.

Controlled demolitions did not topple the twin towers, that is the only fairy tale here.

Carry on.

Are you talking about Oliver Stone's movie? It's not going to have anything like that in it. It was made to reinforce the government's official fairy tale. Oliver Stone has always been a propagandist.

The only weird thing is that it all went so smooth... lol

Very old news!

hmm, as a structural engineer and a PhD in physics I'd say you're wasting your skills being a board whore for a porn program.

It takes neither to see the cold, hard reality - which conspiracy types seem so unwilling to accept.

What is the hard reality?

holy shit

Watch this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=loose+change

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

And then read the facts:

http://www.st911.org/

http://www.911proof.com/

http://www.truth911.net/

There is no 9/11 conspiracy, you morons! -- Maddox.

he comes off very matter of fact as if he knows what he is talking about eh?


however anyone with any formal or even informal training or the slightest interest in physics or even science fiction would most likely recognize that those buildings didnt fall on their own.

Me thinks Dollarmansteve enjoys being on the other side of the argument and will most likely always try to back the unpopular opinion.

Maybe he roots for the underdogs in most situations as well?

Classic, blame the messanger and not the message.

What's the reality, and how are you certain that what you're told is what happened? Just curious as to how you came to the conclusion and if you took into account any of the alternate theories before dismissing them.

Are you starting with the assumption that it would not be possible for a government or for private interests to achieve an act of false flag warfare like this? Or that they simply WOULD NOT do it? I think that's where most people who accept the government's version seem to sit, on the fact that they "wouldn't" or "couldn't" do it. That's a big mistake, history has proven that they can and will.

I'm not saying I know what happened, I do not. I'm no engineer. I personally don't believe the crap about a missile hitting the Pentagon. All I know is that there are way too many holes in the official story to be true. Starting with the video confession by Osama Bin Laden. Why would the FBI authenticate a tape that is so obviously not Bin Laden? It's not even a good look alike. That raised a serious eyebrow.

How did I know before I opened this thread you would be the second one in LOL

it might be because you are ghey...but im not sure

On what do you base that theory? Considering all the evidence, blindly beliving the government makes you sound crazy imho.

You don't need all these web sites or stories to wonder why the towers fell as fast as a stone dropped off the top of them. I mean towers that were made out of steel and with modern technologies all of a sudden fell in free fall? Do you know how many different techologies were used to NOT have them ever fall at all?

And do you know that the burning fuel from the jets simply does not have enough temperature to melt steel?

Lack of evidence. None. Zero. Post what you think is evidence of controlled demolition and I'll tell you why it's not.

Im starting with a clear, rational mind not influenced by politics or fear. Also, with an understanding of the economics of incentive and the geo-political theory of rational actors. As well as logical tools such as ockam's razor.


How agnostic of you. It's easy to not prove something to yourself and then selectively play both sides of the fence.

Also, your bin laden tape theory? Thoroughly debunked.. but you dont want to believe that, you want to believe the conspiracy or at least leave the option open. If you want to learn about the real 'truth' and have all your wildest conspiracy theories debunked, feel free to let me know.

Please, post the evidence.

oh wow, did you watch loose change. You are so educated now.

/sarcasm

Then explain why WTC building 7 collapsed???? :mad:

bump 4 reopen the 911 files and bump 4 telling the people about other conspiracy theories.. (there're only two, one of clear thinking people, like me and pheonix eg and the other from the bush government..)

governments do stuff like that all the time. hitler did it, bush, churchill.. every major government is doing it.

wake up fools..

yes, it is in our own h istroy books even.
this is nothing new it is like they read the manual on facism and started applying it.

i personally think we h ave ostrich syndrome..where people really dont want to realise what is going on so they ignore it...they offer sarcasitic remarks to the only free thinkers out there.....ostrich syndrome..lol

anyone not asking questions and just offering their word as gospel and the only possible truth is laughable

Some of the smartest people i h ave ever met were full of questions non stop....not preaching like some religious fanatic

- the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.

- "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) 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, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

- "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 -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

- "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. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

here's a pic of WTC7, you'll notice that it's completely on fire and heavily damaged. Oh, but your reply will be "ya but fire has never brought down a steel building before". This is true - but WTC7 was no normal building, it was a heavily structurally damaged building that also happened to be on fire.

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

show us the flames in your pic

i mean it is your only evidence..there should be flames shooting out of it like the other buildings around the world that have burnt with raging infernos clearly seen by everyone...these other builds all stood up.

Table 5.1 WTC 7 Tenants


Floor Tenant
46-47 Mechanical floors
28-45 Salomon Smith Barney (SSB)
26-27 Standard Chartered Bank
25 Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
25 Department of Defense (DOD)
25 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
24 Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
23 Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
22 Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
21 First State Management Group
19-21 ITT Hartford Insurance Group
19 National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
18 Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
14-17 Vacant
13 Provident Financial Management
11-13 Securities and Exchange Commission
9-10 US Secret Service
7-8 American Express Bank International
7 OEM generators and day tank
6 Switchgear, storage
5 Switchgear, generators, transformers
4 Upper level of 3rd floor, switchgear
3 Lobby, SSB Conference Center, rentable space, manage
2 Open to first floor lobby, transformer vault upper level, upper level switchgear
1 Lobby, loading docks, existing Con Ed transformer vaults, fuel storage, lower level switchge


Look at the tenants note the yellow ones


World Trade Center Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties due to this collapse. The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. On the contrary, it appears the collapse was due primarily due to a controlled demolition. Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings. Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire.

On September 11, WTC 7 collapsed totally. It is suggested below that this collapse was exclusively due to fire. No significant evidence is offered to back up this suggestion (after all it is only a suggestion). It should be emphasized that WTC 7 was neither hit by an aircraft nor by significant quantities of debris from the collapse of the twin towers. It is also widely claimed that WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed mainly due to fire. I emphasize, that before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire.

1) It is not suggested that WTC7 fell solely due to fire, nor WTC1 or 2 - all three buildings suffered massive physical damage and subsequent fires.

2) listing tenants of a building is evidence of nothing. Also, Do you know what was in those offices? Large organizations have offices in 10s maybe hundreds of office towers. None of the tenants highlighted in yellow would consider those offices as large and/or particularly important. Of the highlighted tenants, the most floors occupied by any one tenant is two floors. In downtown toronto, the bank of montreal occupies almost the full 80 floors of the BMO bank towers. I can assure that an office that occupies 1 or 2 floors of an office tower is highly insignificant. Also, it would not be prudent to store sensitive documents (the kind that an organization would want destroyed..) in such an unsecure location - like the 10th floor of WTC7. So your highlighted tenants lack any real incentive to level their building.

I expect you will post something about insurance / larry Silverstein / "pull it" next? Go ahead, im ready.

is that a joke? I dont know where the flames are.. maybe they are hidden........ BEHIND THE 40 STORIES OF SMOKE.

You don't need all these web sites or stories to wonder why the towers fell as fast as a stone dropped off the top of them. I mean towers that were made out of steel and with modern technologies all of a sudden fell in free fall? Do you know how many different techologies were used to NOT have them ever fall at all?

And do you know that the burning fuel from the jets simply does not have enough temperature to melt steel?

Wrong about Silverstein.... So with tennants like that in WTC 7 one would think that building would have been a fortress, it was discribed that way in many news stories, odd how it collapsed. As for Silverstien I will let someone else question you on that one, I'm sure they will:thumbsup

i think the samething for every single one of your posts on this subject

I love these threads

Works both ways, doesn't it? What evidence is there that your assumptions about the incident are correct? Show me one bit of evidence that Al Queada was behind the attack. The fact that CNN had Bin Laden's face on TV 15 seconds after the second plane hit doesn't do it for me.





So, any situation in which you don't personally have decicive proof, you simply accept the government's story without question? Without even leaving room for the posssibility of questioning it? My thoughts about the situation may be agnositc, but yours are certainly dogmatic. I'm saying I don't know exactly what happened. You're saying with absolute certainty that the government's story is true.




Please show me the debunking of this tape. There is no way the person on the tape I have seen was Osama Bin Laden. It doesn't take TV telling me that one way or another. Look at the confession tape beside other tapes known to be Bin Laden. Sometimes you have to trust your own eyes and common sense. Common sense tells me that Bin Laden did not get a nose job for the confession video.


Bin Laden on the confession tape that CNN told me was real beyond question:

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/.../osamafake.jpg


Real Bin Laden:

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...ocs/osama2.jpg

Differences I can see with my own two eyes: Fatty Bin Laden (fake tape) has a wide nose, higher cheeks, and his face isn't as wide (look at width of face at eye level).

Bill O'Reilly saying over and over again that this is the real Bin Laden is never going to confuse me into believing it.

This is far from the only thing that raises questions in my mind. The absolute refusal from the administration to investigate is another major one.

Then there's building 7, which didn't have a "20 foot hole" in it, at least not when I saw it burning, from about 200 feet away an hour before it fell. And yes, the owner of that building, Larry Silverstien, going on TV and saying that they demolished that building. Then the 9/11 commission denying that.

It goes on and on. Anyone who accepts the official story before we have a real, independent investigation, is thinking with their emotions, not their heads. You're saying there is no evidence, well, it's hard to prove anything without investigating, which for some reason our leadership has made sure will not happen. What you're saying is the definition of dogma.

Ok, so you watched loose change too.. here's a line from the film that references one of the buildings you are talking about:

"On February 23rd, 1991, a 38 storey skyscraper in Philadelphia, built in 1973, burned for more than 19 hours and spread over 8 floors. It did not collapse."

Ok, So here's what really happened at that building:

-Fire was contained by fire dept. and sprinklers from floor 30 and up.
- Bldg was not damaged prior to fire. Fire protection coating was not blown off.

and a quote:

"The Philadelphia fire LC mentions was the Meridian Building. The firefighting efforts were abandoned after 11 hours because the fire department feared (ta-dah) pancake collapse! The building was effectively destroyed in any case. It had a large net over it and had to be reinforced before it could be brought down!"

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh I love that. Yes, pancake collapse is impossible - so impossible that firefighters stopped fighting a fire in the above mentioned building because they were afraid of it!!

sorry only flawed logic and unsound reasoning allowed when speaking to this guy..lol


WTC 7 was pulled because it housed a wealth of info being collected on the current admin...they were going to crucify them....all the evidence was in there....the bush family has been under the gun by the usa for decades

Fuck it I will play the Silverstein card:)


Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

We have attempted to call Larry Silverstein's office on several occasions. Silverstein has never issued a retraction for his comments.

Photos taken moments before the collapse of WTC 7 show small office fires on just two floors.

Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!

i've done alot more research then i care to admit on the subject.

regarding firefighters...tell us why the ones fighting the WTC fires reported the fires being out? and that they were just mopping up the last of them?

you are hopeless...lets not chat on th is subject any further

it is obvious to me you have another agenda of some sort

Man you're seriously a funny guy. Would you mind telling us a bit about your formal education in engineering? Just so we know what qualifies you as an expert. I bet if I spent some time searching google, I could find hundreds of people with engineering degrees that haven't concluded, like your ultra educated self, that explosives MUST have brought down the towers.

In the mean time, here's what 1.1 seconds of searching on google turned up:

Tod Rittenhouse is an expert in blast engineering from the international consulting engineering firm Weidlinger Associates.
RITTENHOUSE: The exterior structure is comprised of columns. The vertical load bearing members and the horizontal elements called "beams." When the plane impacted the building, it severely damaged those exterior columns. The following fire further damaged the support columns. So it was a two step event; initial damage by plane and further damage or subsequent loss of structural stability that caused the building to fail.

I LOVE that you used this picture!! lol. ok my turn. Here is a still from the same video.. exact same video!!:

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/images/image157.jpg

OH MY GOD .. it's like he morphed into the real bin laden. Maybe it's really a shape shifting alien.


Real Bin Laden:

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...ocs/osama2.jpg

My single frame from the video looks more like bin laden than YOUR single frame.

Did you real the 9/11 commission report? Every good conspiracy theorist should read it, even if you think the investigation was lacking, you cant really say "absolute refusal to investigate".

I believe the opposite - anyone who believes the conspriacy which is backed by absolutely no real evidence and flies in the face of any actual evidence that does exist - is the one thinking with their emotions.

The evidence is all right in front of your face!! it's the best kind of evidence!!

thanks man..i always try to ameka joke when i can


now seriously...my formal training? B.Sc. Mathematics...not a physics degree...but good enough id say....and you can quote some dude all you want and ill qoute one hundred others who say the opposite...then we can get our fathers and debate about who made the playground...it is not proof it is an opinion.


the popular opinion out there, and also the most logical explanation is that these buildings were blasted apart....why else would they ship all the material to China without allowing it to be tested? Where did the molten steel come from? Where did the billions and billions in gold go? So man questions you ANTI's dont want to answer

wait here comes looniemansteve to accuse someone of watching loose change again..lol

That's been argued ad nauseum.
When someone comes forward with anything more than "they must have been explosives" then we'll talk.

Ask any demolition expert and he (or she) will tell you that in order to blow up a building that big you need a lot of explosives, and they have to be placed at many, various places in the building.

To this date there has not been one shred of evidence showing that anyone saw, heard, overheard, read, fly-on-the-wall, suspected, implied or otherwise determined ANYONE at ANY TIME planted explosives in the building.

Getting them in and set up would be a MAJOR task. Concealing them from 15000+ office workers, janitors, etc. etc. would be nothing short of a miracle. Yet no one saw ANYTHING. And to this date, not one person (and it would have taken many) has come forward to admit they helped plant bombs that took the lives of 3000 fellow Americans ...

And if you're absolutely convinced bombs were planted ...
Why exactly must it have been a "conspiracy"? If you believe the bombs could have been planted undetected, then you must believe terrorists could have been the ones planting them...

Now get on with your lives
:)

Another agenda.

ohhh man... you are getting so close to the truth.. you're like Mulder about to find his long lost sister.

I am actually illuminati - a Rothschild to be exact. And I have been sent by the Grand Pubah to this message board to defend my family's grand conspiracy against our enemies - like you, because you are so close to toppling our grip on the world.

Dude get real.. I have no agenda other than an intolerance for irrational thought.

Kevsh, if there's one thing I've learned about conspiracy theories its that the LEAST important part of the puzzle is evidence - all you need is an imagination and a website ;)

9/11 conspiracy theories have maaaad wikiality.. :1orglaugh

You can group me with "antis" or whoever you like. I'm 100% positive I don't know the whole truth about what happened on 9/11. I'm also 100% positive you don't either.

You don't have an engineering degree, you haven't been to inspect the WTC, you weren't there when it happened. So basically, you're jumping to a 100% conclusion based on second hand facts and opinions.

The funny part of it is you lambast anybody who has the nerve to agree with the official reporting when your information is no closer to first hand either. Do you see my point?

It's no less ridiculous to believe the goverment part and parcel than it is to be "sure" the buildings were brought down by explosions. You don't know.

As far being able to find 100's of descenting qualified experts, that's fine, except a few posts ago you were telling us how NOBODY with any kind of "formal or informal" training would believe explosvies were not used. It took me less than 1 second to debunk that theory.

Actually, many parts of that lame documentary have been refuted. As one example, one of the reporters featured in the video outside the Pentagon recently came on TV and showed the entire clip - and clearly the Loose Change producer(s) did some creative editing. They showed you only want they wanted you to see, and that's not the only place they did that.

And that is the real problem with the documentary: It really only shows evidence to support the conspiracy theory it's trying to get everyone to believe. It's far, far from objective and as I've said before, if you studied "critical analysis" in school (and still remember who to apply it!), you'll rip that video's credibility to shreds.

correction...research this yourself so you believe the sources...but i believe it was Neil Bush who took overr direct control of the security there in the months before the demolition.

now...also look this up it is fact....all bomb sniffing dogs were taken out of those buildings during that time

now also look this up it is fact...huge areas of the buildings were being closed down, especially in the basement....huge sections of the building were closed and only allowed personel were able to enter.

plenty of time for a crack force to plant explosives..and no pesty german shephards who cant be bought to complain about the bombs they smell


look it up....it is all there

Really? Did you go to U of T as well? Because I also have a B.Sc in Math from UofT, although I started off in economics and dabbled in chemisty and physics