48 votes

.

.

.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

why would i tell you over and

why would i tell you over and over where it's at in the video. i don't owe you a timestamp, mostly cause i dont want to suffer through the vid again.

You can't give one because its not there!

... and you have been caught in a LIE. I want you to provide a time-stamp because I know full well what you said was in the video; IS NOT THERE!

Admit you posted miss-information, or admit being a lier. You are guilty of one, your choice which you admit to.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

Hey Liberty

Honest question: can you debunk those within the A&E for 9/11? And if so, which parts?

I'm willing to listen to your side. As long as it abides with the Laws of Physics.

Fair?

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

SteveMT's picture

"pulling the whole building along" perfectly and symmetrically!

So strange isn't it that three buildings get asymmetrically hit at three different locations, yet all three fall symmetrically? Why use very expensive demolition experts who meticulously plan this events months ahead of time to achieve the same result? And no "redundancy" in these expensive tall buildings either. When one truss goes, the entire structure goes. What are our architectural engineers learning to build these days?

wtc7

Silverstein claims that he pulled wtc7.

PULLED, meaning demolished.

The only possible way that he 'pulled' it was if the squibs were planted in the building over a course of days.

Also the trusses could not have lost their integrity from a fire, that claim shows that you are just a clueless and very scared sheep.

Facts you say? There is nothing factual about your extremely dumb post.

If you have the ballz tho, I will happily shred the rest of your 'theory'...bring it on fool.

Funny how

this organization of intelligent, highly trained professionals say your completely wrong.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

I'll be impressed when they

I'll be impressed when they have as many signatories as the global warming crowd. :p

Thanks RT

For spreading your anti american propaganda. Remember folks its just another bias, that we happen to somewhat believe.

yeah because it's so anti-American to question things

and even more anti-American to expect reasonable answers and actions of an elected government.

Blind trust and suspension of disbelief is the American way ......

or is that the Hollywood way? No dude this is America not Hollywood

I find that RT more often

I find that RT more often tells me the truth about the United States that do ABC, MSNBC, Fox, CNN, and CBS combined. OTOH, you won't get good objective reporting about Putin from RT.

You got me wrong

I kind of figured I'd get the down votes but I'd like to input my final word.

Yes RT reports on a lot of controversial subjects with great accuracy in truth. I do believe that they cover major news events surrounding America better than the media outlets you listed above. I would just like to point out that everyone, group or what have you covering media will have a bias. In the case of RT: a news media outlet based in Russia that has been reporting truth about the American regime. Why would an Russian television network want Americans to wake up though a news media outlet? its because its their job or bias to do so in efforts to bring down the fascist american regime. I'm no Americana but what does that remind me of?? hmm I wonder maybe sometime between 1982-1991.

RT is nothing more than another bias media outlet source; just like how Fox and CNN spew shit like it comes from a tap. Even though they actually do report the truth in many occasions its important that you don't believe everything you hear, take bits and pieces and make your own mind up.

Come on man, you know better

Come on man, you know better than this. If the buildings were structurally similar then we could look further into this but till then its a red herring.

"If the buildings were structurally similar"

how are they NOT structurally similar, wise guy.

Probably in a thousand ways.

Probably in a thousand ways. Is a steel bridge structurally similar to steel railroad tracks or a steel building?

If you had to ask that questions, you're obviously not qualified to even have a theory on 9/11.

ecorob's picture

The buildings at ground zero in New York were...

built out of steel.

These "Russian" buildings are built out of steal. There's a difference.

You see, its Russia, of course and the media has told me that anything "russian" is, of course, structurally different.

Its steal, man, not real steel. So, of course it won't fall. Why can't you see that, you booger eater. You masturbater. Have you gone blind from your masturbating? Is your mouth too full to speak the truth.

(Sorry, HVACTech. I just had to mock some of this guy's past posts. Forgive me.)

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

because today Oceania is at

because today Oceania is at war with Eurasia

duh

lawrence

Misleading

This building isn't fully engulfed. It also looks like a fortress compared to any of the WTC buildings. However, it does actually show how destructive a fire can be. This one's not even sparked by jet fuel.

.

.

The fire in that photo is

The fire in that photo is obviously much hotter than the black, smokey fire that allegedly brought down WTC 7.

Why?

Why?

In the photograph of that

In the photograph of that burning building in Chechnya you can see the flames are very bright, almost white, so are very hot. The intense bright flames span many floors.

Here is a "debunking" article showing that WTC 7 was "consumed by fire". http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kill... In the photos and video you can see that there was a substantial fire -- primarily confined to one floor. There are some intense flames pouring out of a few windows but the massive black smoke indicates that much of the burning on that floor was oxygen starved and so relative cool (as fires go). If the WTC 7 fire actually brought down the building it was a massively incompetent design. A one or two story office fire shouldn't bring down a steel frame building.

The WTC7 looks worse

The angles are very different but the WTC7 building looks like it has a very hot fire burning inside. The building from this post looks like the fire is mostly on the outer parts of the building.

Also, black smoke is probably from the plastics and artificial chair stuffing, stuff like that.

What's more, the russian building has a massive tower of black smoke. What exactly did you mean that there wasn't any? I see much more in this russian building than in the WTC7 pics you posted.

Also, the color isn't necessarily white. It's hard to tell and I think inconclusive from these photos. It is bright but the color shows as white because the photoelectric chips in the camera (CCD) are saturated from the luminosity. It could be white, but I'm not sure that this photo proves it. At any rate, we can't see the really hot parts of the WTC7 photo cause the camera angles aren't that good and the fire is much deeper into the building than the other.

While, I'm not exactly sure

While, I'm not exactly sure what started the fire in WTC 7, I can tell you that if it was jet fuel, It sure couldn't have been much. WTC 7 collapsed due to the burning of office supplies and furniture; or so some people believe. This fire is a raging inferno in comparison to the many little fires inside building 7.

NIST reports

State that there was no jet fuel which burned in WTC 7 and the fires were started on one side of the building by falling debris but they eventually spread to the opposite side of the building which is where the collapse started.

Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie

ecorob's picture

ssshhhhhh!

Don't say that out loud. If you do I'll have to attack you, personally because its apparent, since you are from Alabama, that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about!

Larry Silverstein said to "pull" it and he meant "pull" the fire fighters because they knew the building was going to collapse! It was burning, after all. And, don't fire fighters normally evacuate from a fire. God forbid a fire fighter would fight a fire! Especially, one that was reported to be "under control". "What are those fire fighters doing fighting that fire, Henry? Get them out of their, Rudy! We're gonna "pull it!"

You should move up here to Wisconsin. We could teach you red necks from Alabama a thing, or two, about structural integrity.

Sorry for all the sarcasm, Angie. These trolls bring it out of me.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

lol you guys are funny. If I

lol you guys are funny. If I were a firefighter, I would die in a fire before escaping before the building collapses. (thats my attempt at sarcasm)

Yep yep....any minute now.....

.....*cricket noise*

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

Its chechnya

Its built to take an artillery attack and stay standing. In fact, workers on one half of the building can stay at their desks and finish their work day while the other half is on fire. Architect explains here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSyxUAlbDRw

lol

lol

---Want to discuss politics with Mormons? Please read:

"Latter Day Liberty"-Connor Boyack(forward by Ron Paul

Doctrine and Covenants sections 134 & 89

Watch Secretary of Agg Ezra Taft Benson's discourse on "The Proper Role of Government"

Did it have a plane smash into it?

If not then no, I don't think it should necessarily collapse.