user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Just look at the picture. The dust from the twin towers collapse has settled on the glass builing in the foreground.
Larger versions of the same picture show debris in the foreground proving that the towers had not 'just collapsed'.
Voted : It was damaged when the twin towers collapsed
What's the odds on Ken saying "it's photoshopped".
"Conspiracy Theorists often claim that this is dust from the'just collapsed' towers. "
Even though the wind that day was blowing south to north. (left to right) in this picture.
Here is what the firefighters who were there dealing with the crisis firsthand, had to say about it...
"Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and
you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is
it coming down next? "
"but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that
a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side"
"A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that
the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there
was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center"
"I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and
they weren't going to send anyone in"
"but then you looked on the south side of 7 there
had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. "
"Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it
was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was
kind of out of whack with the SW corner. "
"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."
"At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the
building was missing. "
"n the alleyway on the north, which turned out to be
the right direction because apparently there was a lot of debris and part of 7
down already"
"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all fortyseven
stories."
"The flames were coming out of every window of that
building from the explosion of the south tower. "
"A while later, an NYFD supervisor approached and ordered the rescuers away
from the area because 7 WTC was in danger of collapse also"
"building 7 was
“basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it"
"asked us to leave the area, they were concerned
about 7 World Trade Center Collapsing. "
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o'clock, that they thought 7 was
going to collapse."
"I remember him screaming about number 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, "
"Specifically
to monitor number 7 World Trade Center. We were very concerned with
the collapse potential there"
" but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly
should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That
building is going to come down"
All links on my userpage.
I'll go with the firefighters testimonies, the video and the pictures from the south face, and the official explanation for now until...
A) I'm shown pictures or video of the south face showing no damage, smoke or flames.
B) I'm shown recordings of the hundreds of bright flashes the deafening cracking explosions preceding the collapse.
C) I'm shown irrefutable hard physical evidence that the NYPD are liars.
D) I'm shown physical evidence of the NYPD having the know how, the capability and the authority to demolish sky scrapers ravished by fire - even when they can't enter the building, because of fire.
F) I'm shown hard physical evidence that the term "pull" has anything to do with explosives.
G) I'm shown physical evidence that perishable explosives, blasting caps and detonation chord can survive a massive blaze.
I could go on all day.
"Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it
was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was
kind of out of whack with the SW corner. "
You can clearly see it leaning to the left in that picture.
Testing...
Bollocks!!!
Fuck it!!
Oh, so i decides to work now!!!
Sorry widehead.
If you can see that picture I just posted, you can see clearly that the smoke is coming from behind the collapsed towers - from WTC7.
You can also see the difference in colours, between the light dust of WTC1 and the dark grey smoke of WTC7
Voted : It was damaged when the twin towers collapsed
Just how many time do we have to asked the SAME question?
7 WTC was left to burn.
ANY structure left to burn without any fire supression efforts (automatic or manual) will collapse. It's simple physics.
Anyone that doesn't take the time to understand Physics 101, is just intentionally ignorant.
Debris from the falling towers ripped a 20 storey hole in a nearby building (WTC7)…
Did I miss anything?
by wideheadofknowledge ....Did I miss anything?
by wideheadofknowledge
Shall I tell him or will you folks?
There was no - repeat NO twenty story HOLE in WTC 7, why lie?, just don't bother posting lies and wasting every one's time with nonsense like that will you for a change?
Here is a challenge for you Wide head -
1) I want you to post a ballot with an attached photo of this twenty story hole in WTC 7, and I want you to describe in detail exactly where this hole is.
WELL? WHERE IS THE TWENTY STORY HOLE WIDE HEAD?
2) While you are at it I want you to explain why WTC 7's 14th and 15th floors were in the months and weeks leading up to 9/11 heavily fortified with bomb proof glass facing the twin towers.
They have since claimed it was a bunker for Mayor Giuliani in case of terrorist attacks would you believe, which he took the opportunity not to use on the day of the attacks!
3) I want you to explain why these two mysterious fires started given that no windows had been smashed on the corresponding floors, or any where on the entire facade of the building facing the twin towers, never mind and twenty story hole! - Even if they had been that is not necessarily reason for a fire to start.
4) Why did the automatic sprinkler system conveniently fail to activate and extinguish these fires?
5)Why did the then new WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein clearly state in a TV interview a year after the attacks 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.
Photos taken shortly before 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!
6) Explain to everyone why buildings that didn't belong or weren't insured by Silverstein holdings and that were right beside the twin towers and sustained massive damage - far more damage than WTC 7 - didn't collapse into their own footprints at near free fall speed!
Yet this WTC 7 building - which was by the way the strongest building on the WTC site being fortified with solid cross section girders rather than the 'H' type because it straddled the a major electrical substation - was conveniently demolished, tell tale streamers and charges can be seen all over the front of the building and explosive charges running up the side in a straight perpendicular line running up the sides.
The penthouse can clearly be seen falling in through the roof first as the building was violently eviscerated from the inside.
7) Why was the steel from this controlled demolition immediately and illegally shipped off before almost any major examination had been done to check for the possibility of explosives, and to try and determine the cause of it’s collapse so as to prevent it happening in future?
Unfortunately, we may never know what happened because much to the NYFD's anger, the steel from the WTC was immediately and illegally shipped off before almost any major examination had been done to check for the real reasons for it‘s collapse.
"Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from ground zero. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month fire experts told congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped so far, without being examined because investigators did not have authority to preserve wreckage". - One investigator of the WTC told New York Times, "this is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied." The member asked not to be identified because members have been "threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press". "FEMA is controlling everything," the team member said .
I look forward to your ballot and seeing this 'twenty story hole' in the WTC 7 - something that everyone else in America apart from yourself seems to have missed.
PS. By the way folks - just for the record, I'm pretty certain I know what his wild 20 story hole exaggeration is about, it's some minor superficial damage on one of the corners of the building, that did not have any impact whatsoever on the enormously strong steel framework of this building - so his bullshit about planes weakening it don't wash here - because NO PLANE hit this building!
If he tries to claim that this is why the building fell then he is in cloud cuckoo land, especially when one considers that weaker buildings which sustained WW2 blitzkrieg type damage and that were right beside the twin towers but weren't insured by Silverstein didn't, surprise surprise, collapse or catch fire.
Where is the twenty story hole WIDE HEAD?
Implosion World.com, a website about the demolition industry, states that an implosion is “by far the trickiest type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience . . . to perform these true building implosions." Can anyone really believe that fire would have just happened to produce the kind of collapse that can be reliably produced by only a few demolition companies in the world? The building had 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns. To hold that fire caused this building to collapse straight down would mean believing that the fire caused all 81 columns to fail at exactly the same time. To accept the official story is, in other words, to accept a miracle.
1) I want you to post a ballot with an attached photo of this twenty story hole in WTC 7, and I want you to describe in detail exactly where this hole is.
WELL? WHERE IS THE TWENTY STORY HOLE IN THAT PHOTO YOU POSTED WIDE HEAD? - describe in detail what you see in your photo please that suggests any evidence of a twenty story high hole. ->
That first photo you posted at the very top of the page has been altered digitally. I've seen the the large version, and it got blown immediately on a site where video and photo experts regularly post.
If you look very carefuly at the side where the DUST (it's not smoke, it's DUST coming from BEHIND the building), look down towards the lower part of the building below the darkened burnt area of (only 2 floors) and you'll notice that there's an unusually light area. In close-up, this area doesn't match up.
By the way, when are you Official Conspiracy Theory pushers who try o hard to defend the USA government's lies going to post some photos of VISIBLE FIRES in WTC 7?
Showing us DUST from the collapses PROVES NOTHING.
You need to post photos or links to video of VISIBLE FIRES.
I'll go with the firefighters testimonies, the video and the pictures from the south face, and the official explanation for now until...
A) I'm shown pictures or video of the south face showing no damage, smoke or flames.
B) I'm shown recordings of the hundreds of bright flashes the deafening cracking explosions preceding the collapse.
C) I'm shown irrefutable hard physical evidence that the NYPD are liars - and their testomimonies incorrect.
D) I'm shown physical evidence of the NYPD having the know how, the capability and the authority to demolish sky scrapers ravished by fire - even when they can't enter the building, because of fire.
F) I'm shown hard physical evidence that the term "pull" has anything to do with explosives.
G) I'm shown physical evidence that perishable explosives, blasting caps and detonation chord can survive a massive blaze.
Is anybody willing to show me those? Come on Ken, "set me free" with the truth.
"By the way folks - just for the record, I'm pretty certain I know what his wild 20 story hole exaggeration is about, it's some minor superficial damage on one of the corners of the building"
It's not my hole clever clogs. Why are you blatantly ignoring the testimony of Captain Boyle? (Note that he did not say that it seemed like a 20 storey hole)
"Showing us DUST from the collapses PROVES NOTHING."
How true. Unfortunately for you the video links I posted also show huge volumes of smoke pouring from the building - as it collapses.
"You need to post photos or links to video of VISIBLE FIRES."
Why? You haven't given a single shred of evidence to back up any of your claims. Listen to whatb the firefighters had to say, watch the videos and realise that you are terribly, terribly wrong about this.
"By the way folks - just for the record, I'm pretty certain I know what his wild 20 story hole exaggeration is about, it's some minor superficial damage on one of the corners of the building"
It's not my hole clever clogs. Why are you blatantly ignoring the testimony of Captain Boyle? (Note that he did not say that it seemed like a 20 storey hole) he said - "there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building," - big difference, Ken - just shows how desperate they are.
"Showing us DUST from the collapses PROVES NOTHING."
How true. Unfortunately for you the video links I posted also show huge volumes of smoke pouring from the building - as it collapses. (But NO fire - Ken)
"You need to post photos or links to video of VISIBLE FIRES."
Why? You haven't given a single shred of evidence to back up any of your claims. Listen to whatb the firefighters had to say, watch the videos and realise that you are terribly, terribly wrong about this. -WHOK
-WHOK has nothing to back up his claims because HE is wrong - 75% of the firefighters and police in New York believe it was an inside job - Ken
Now look this folks - much stronger building, unexplained small fires behind unbroken windows and failed state of the art sprinkler systems, and no fires visible upon collapse, fires not even hot enough to break a window! YET........
"unexplained small fires"
Lies, lies, lies
"behind "unbroken windows"
Not on the side of wtc7 facing the twin towers - there was a 20 storey hole.
"failed state of the art sprinkler systems"
Almost certainly damaged by the debris allowing fires to spread. Logical isn't it?
"and no fires visible upon collapse"
Except for the enormous quantities of smoke pouring from almost every floor, as you have nicely shown on the left side of your animated pic. Thanks!
Still at the bullshit-mongering, Ken? It's embarrassing!
It was damaged when Ken's big head knocked it down.
(Except for the enormous quantities of smoke pouring from almost every floor
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Nov 20, 06 7:29am)
That thick smoke isn't coming from WTC 7, it's coming from the very real infernos burning in WTC 5 and WTC 6 behind it. This is WTC 5 on the left with raging fires, WTC 7 is on the right
Here is another picture of WTC 5
So the two buildings which really had very visible infernos - yet did not collapse. Unlike the obvious controlled demolition of WTC 7.
These small fires on only two floors of WTC 7 are most definitely NOT huge raging infernos.
And we already know that WTC 7 was "pulled" in a controlled demolition.
When Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.”
Mr. McQuillan later claimed that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
But "It" does not refer to firefighters. If they were referring to firefighters, the word would be "them" not "it". If the firefighters were referring to themselves, they would use "us", but definitely not "It".
Despite the lies of Mr. McQuillan, and the later change of story by Larry Silverstein, and the silly lies on the debunking911 blog site, the real problem with their lying change of story is that there were no firefighters in WTC 7.
In WTC 7, "No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." (FEMA Report) QUOTE - "WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."
Even Popular Mechanics agreed with this, stating, "There was no firefighting in WTC 7"
"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from for safety reasons." New York Times WTC 7 went down long afterwards at 5:20pm.
So the claim of pulling the firefighters doesn't make sense because it is clear there weren't any firefighters in WTC 7 anyway.
His claim that "pull it" isn't used to refer to controlled demolitions is proven to be a lie even in the Oxford English Dictionary.
pull down - To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
pull down 1. To pull down or break up so that reconstruction is impossible: demolish, destroy, dismantle, dynamite, knock down, level, pulverize, raze, tear down, wreck
It's a term used for demolitions - cable, explosive, by wrecking ball, or any other method of destruction. It's clearly a demolition term.
Incidentally, "pull" also means "demolish" in any context involving firefighting. You can find examples of the use of the word "pull" to mean demolish by merely using Google to search for "firefighter" and "pull."
Example:
"E7's crew pulled the wall and knocked the fire quickly"
taken from here:
wellstonfd . com / index _ 038 . htm
Indira Singh was a volunteer civilian Emergency Medical Technician at the World Trade Center on September 11th. She was a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management.
INDRA SINGH EMT: "...by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down."
HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?"
SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility..."
CRAIG BARTMER NYPD: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw..."
John Kerry: WTC Building 7 Was a Controlled Demolition
Kerry was asked about the officially unexplained collapse of WTC Building 7,
Kerry responded:
"I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things-- that they did it in a controlled fashion."
Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden traveled to ground zero completely of his own accord and spent the next four days searching through the rubble and nearby buildings for survivors.
On September 9 2006, McPadden told an audience at the Community Church in New York City how while he was stationed in a Red Cross operations center, he was told that Building 7 was going to be brought down
McPADDEN: "They said you know you've got to stay behind this line because they're thinking about taking this building down, they're not sure if it's stable or not, so they were holding a line off because they had knowledge that something was gonna happen. Well, they pushed us back a little bit....a couple of minutes later they started coming down....people started coming back out to the street, I watched five New York City buses jam packed with people wanting to do search and rescue head down there towards Building 7 - people walk out into the middle of the street to see these people off, like bon voyage and right then Building 7 came down."
Reporter Al Jones: "People started to run away from the scene and I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion -- looked like it had been done by a demolition crew -- the whole thing just collapsing down on itself and another big huge plume of gray and white smoke shooting up into the air and then more of the smoke billowing up the street here... so that’s number one, number two, and now number seven that have come down from this explosion."
Live 9-11 Report from 1010 WINS NYC News Radio, presented in the documentary "911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 28:25)
CBS News Anchor, Dan Rather, makes comments after Building 7 falls down:
“Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”
Larry Silverstein told them to demolish the WTC 7 building. Maybe he was thinking that he could carry on with a story that after the towers had already fallen, the demo team ran into a building that was on fire and completely surrounded and filled with smoke and debris and perfectly set up explosives to bring down building 7 (which shouldn't have fallen to begin with) - after which running back through the fire and debris and smoke to exit the building before demolishing it.
That of course, doesn't make any sense. That then means that building 7 was already hooked up to explosives prior to 9/11 (which proves that the owner and then also the government knew about it and orchestrated it) - This seriously leads to the question as to why WTC 1 and 2 looked and acted so much like controlled demolitions - your explanation hasnt dealt with that fact. Because if you are going to wire one of your buildings ahead of time why not wire them all? Which then means that the towers were hooked up as well.
|
|
