The End Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 "Look at me! If I put my hands over my eyes...I'm invisible!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The brown one Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 here's a WTC7 site and the guy who authors the site, Jim Hoffman, speaks here in hour 1, and relates more scientific and engineering information than anyone should ever need in order to be convinced the whole episode was preconceived. Totally amazed by that CBS video on your link! Looks to an untrained eye like a computer animation of how to demolish a large building perfectly!How many demolition companies in the world would be capable of that precision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beardrech Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 Jimi: This appears to show what you observed. http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/closeup.htm I don't accept that the towers were brought down by anything other than the force created by the gradual destruction of the two or three floors that were fully involved in flame (in combination with a fully loaded jet aircraft that surely too out some structure on the way through), and I assume that the floors below buckled like an accordian under the weight. What can appear to be charges detonating on the lower floors as the towers collapse could just as easily have been structure buckling or the force of air blowing out windows below as it went. Building #7 on the other hand did not suffer the same type of gutting-by-aircraft that each tower did. There were some accounts of some drilling sounds in the WTC 7 building in the weeks prior. I take no position on this stuff - just sharing what I find. On one particular site, many of the links provided to substantiate claims made have been rendered inoperable...presumeably by those with self-interest. a TRAGEDY OF UNINTENDED COSEQUENCES best explains why such an almost imperishable mountain of 20th century steel accordianed into ther ground with its TV antennea making it look like a rocket ship going ,Einsteinian fashion,backwards in time and space towards perdition and is the following The environmentalist gang of anti-asbestiosistitists made certain the I beams and all allied structures were to remain nude of all asbestos--thus saving ...... well you get the rest of the story beardrech :cry: All architects should be forced to take a course in literature devoted to the analysis of the fable entitled "The THREE LITTLE PIGGIES" -------i'D agree except I dont like pork-ocraphy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The End Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 At what temp. does DNA get destroyed? Anyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimi Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 As I sit that morning watching Squawk Box and reading charts in the pre-market not a word about the Hi-Jacking comes over the TV or my Dow Jones Newswire-WHY?? many people knew but is was NOT reported. Then we all watched the first plane hit and then the second. You saw footage of the first attack? I wasn't aware of footage of the first strike. Or did you misspeak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The End Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 There is video of the first plane. I saw it. It was on one of the three major networks. I remember hearing the plane fly over the downtown area and seeing it hit head on into the tower. (video from chinatown area) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 With respect to the advance-testing and structural integrity assurances built into the twin towers... They were designed to withstand many different forces...but surely no one tested the design to see what would happen if you effectively held the top of the building in place, removed a couple floors below, then let the top drop down on the remaining floors. Viewing the close up video one can clearly see that - contrary to most of the more conspiratorial claims I have read today, it was still a raging inferno up there at the time the structure failed. Many had claimed that the fire was effectively out for a period of time prior to the collapse. Sure doesn't look that way on that close up shot of the fracture point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 There is video of the first plane. I saw it. It was on one of the three major networks. I remember hearing the plane fly over the downtown area and seeing it hit head on into the tower. (video from chinatown area) By my recollection, a foreign crew was doing a talking head interview on a street corner and the photographer panned up in time to catch it. The video was not aired for several hours afterward however. May have even been a day later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The End Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 Plunger, You did see those people alive and standing where one of the planes hit. Right (video)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimi Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 There is video of the first plane. I saw it. It was on one of the three major networks. I remember hearing the plane fly over the downtown area and seeing it hit head on into the tower. (video from chinatown area) This is the only known video of the 1st WTC tower plane crash, and it first became available on September 12th, the day after 9/11! Until then, we had all seen endless replays of a 767 crashing into the 2nd WTC tower, and we'd also seen a huge gaping hole in the side of the 1st tower. And by then we all (were so sure we) knew what that (had) meant... You saw this footage on the morning of 9/11? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The End Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 I don't remember. Sorry. It was not at the time of the incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimi Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 But this is the point. Both you and Brian just claimed to have seen video of the first plane hitting the morning of 9/11. I asked, "Did you misspeak?" And yet the claims about Bldg 7 are presumably supported by Silverstein's "admission" on a PBS show to have had the building pulled down. Did he misspeak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The End Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 But this is the point. Both you and Brian just claimed to have seen video of the first plane hitting the morning of 9/11. I asked, "Did you misspeak?" And yet the claims about Bldg 7 are presumably supported by Silverstein's "admission" on a PBS show to have had the building pulled down. Did he misspeak? I did not claim to have seen the first plane hit that day. Brian did. I don't remember. Quote me where I said I saw the plane hit that morning. Why does that matter anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threadbare Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 Just a thought--re 911--It would be reasonable to expect, in the first days, nay hours after the attack, when nothing (apparently) was really clearly understood by the administration, that they would have done a few very elementary things. One would have been to sequester ALL janitorial and maintenance staff who'd had access to the building, hook them up to lie detector tests and question away. Was this done? And if it was done, was it done in a timely manner? If a month or two elapsed until the time of questioning, did any maintenance employees quit their jobs? Names, nationalities? Reasons for leaving. Where are they now? Lie detector tests? It may take a rocket scientist to help establish the reliability of the jet fuel melt-down hypothesis, but it doesn't take one to establish intentional criminal negligence AFTER the fact, that would go a long way to support the idea of conscious criminal intent. For those making their case by using ridicule, understand that ridicule has very little impact on those who are confident of their intellect and sure of their own sincerity. And the acid of sarcasm simply backfires, sorry to say, wearing down the entire facade of a belief system that itself is composed of cursory glimpses of other facades. It's rather Eischer like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimi Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 But this is the point. Both you and Brian just claimed to have seen video of the first plane hitting the morning of 9/11. I asked, "Did you misspeak?" And yet the claims about Bldg 7 are presumably supported by Silverstein's "admission" on a PBS show to have had the building pulled down. Did he misspeak? I did not claim to have seen the first plane hit that day. Brian did. I don't remember. Quote me where I said I saw the plane hit that morning. Why does that matter anyway? My bad. I misunderstood your quote below to be indicating that you too had "seen" on TV the first plane hit the morning of the attack: There is video of the first plane. I saw it. It was on one of the three major networks. I remember hearing the plane fly over the downtown area and seeing it hit head on into the tower. (video from chinatown area) The point is that Silverstein is being implicated on these websites as a co-conspirator, admitting to having greenlighted the pull down: In a September 2002 PBS documentary called 'America Rebuilds,' Silverstein states, in reference to World Trade Center Building 7, "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." "Decision to pull" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.