UnderGround Forums
 

PoliticalGround >> new photos of WTC complex


8/29/06 9:19 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Aug-06
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 1302
bump?
8/29/06 10:29 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Trust
815 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Aug-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 38363
Conspiracy theorist say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by Airliners and only had a few fires. It also had a confession from the building owner who said he "Pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence conspiracy theorist are wrong. As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above the them.
Below is a photo of the bankers trust building.
As you can see, the building never caught fire so it was never in any danger of collapse. It also was constructed differently, with a web column design. The interior columns were not pushed out to the perimeter. Note the WTC columns laid out as if there were a path to the building. There are no concrete slabs attached to columns. This is yet another example of pancaking. With the floors pancaking straight down, the perimeter walls were free to lean over in tall sections before breaking off and coming down. That's what gave them distance. So we know the building should have been hit given the debris field above. But what of the damage to the building? Conspiracy sites say there were small fires. And what of Silverstein's comments in the PBS special? He used the term "Pull" to describe a decision made. Conspiracy theorist say "Pull" is a term used by demolition experts. This is one of those many half truths conspiracy theorist use to convince the ignorant. "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition. However, was the fire more severe than conspiracy theorist let on and was Silverstein's quote taken out of context? The two are related and are explored below.
The above photo is very different than the photos you usually see on conspiracy sites. Silverstein's Quote:
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander -Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
He could be lying right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/ Banaciski_Richard.txt
8/29/06 10:29 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Trust
815 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Aug-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 38364
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"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
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/ Nigro_Daniel.txt
"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
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC /Cruthers.txt
"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
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC /Ryan_William.txt
"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7? Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn't know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site. Firehouse: How many companies? Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we're heading east on Vesey, we couldn't see much past Broadway. We couldn't see Church Street. We couldn't see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty." "A little north of Vesey I said, we'll go down, let's see what's going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, 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. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good. But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned. Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
8/29/06 10:30 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Trust
815 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Aug-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 38365
This proves there was a big hole on the south side. It's in the middle of the building and goes up about 20 stories...
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7-- did you have to get all of those people out? Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn't want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn't even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn't know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o'clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that's a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that's a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn't seem so bad. But that's what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn't want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody... My feeling early on was we weren't going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn't make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn't go further north on West Street. And I couldn't go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
It mirrors what Silverstein said.
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02] Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02] Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11. http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html
And now for the best video evidence to date from our friends at 911myths... http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi That alone should end this debate. The fire dept didn't have orders from on high. So that leaves the fire dept lying to cover up a demolition for Bush or the firefighters made a good call. More from another blogger... RealityCheck
"(1) In your own quote we have a Fire Dept. COMMANDER saying: "....they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire......". How and why is everyone ignoring the fact that the COMMANDER, obviously based on his relevant/authoritative experience/knowledge, judges that the WTC7 fire is OUT OF CONTROL! I ask any reasonable person to tell me WHAT POSSIBLE OPINION from ANY 'civilian' could have been persuasive enough to CHANGE THE COMMANDER'S MIND enough to continue with a 'lost cause'? [....the persistence with which 'lost cause' could only INEVITABLY have resulted in greater loss of life than if they "pulled back" NOW and leave it to burn out while concentrate on preventing its spread further afield, heh? ]. So, whatever Silverstein might have WANTED, in light of what the COMMANDER said, it is OBVIOUS to any reasonable person that Silverstein could have had little OTHER choice than to recognize and acquiesce/concur with the FIRE COMMANDER'S professional judgment Wouldn't you agree? (2) As to the term "pull": Given that the fire department is organized/regimented along semi-milaristic lines (evidence terms such as Battalion and Commander), would it seem unreasonable to find that OTHER traditional 'military' terms are used?......like withdraw[ or move out or PULL (back) etc. .......in such a structure/culture as in a FIRE DEPT. COMMAND STRUCTURE maneuvering/ordering about MANY 'troops' (firemen)? I for one would find it extraordinary if such an organization did NOT use such traditional and well understood/useful (and to the point) terms to ISSUE ORDERS WHICH COULD NOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD EVEN IN THE HEAT OF 'BATTLE' (remember the term "Battalion" which is part of their organizational/operational structure?). RC.
8/29/06 10:31 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Trust
815 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Aug-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 38366
As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, lets review the evidence...
What we do have for sure. 1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it". 2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn't look straight." He then says "It didn't look right". 3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse." 4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13". 5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first. 6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after. 7) The collapse happened from the bottom. 8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building. 9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter? 10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building. 11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse" 12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building. What we don't have... 1) Clear view of the large hole 2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact 3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side 4) Any sign of an actual explosive. Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview. 9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why? They are interviewing this woman with Building 7 in the background because they knew well in advance the building was going to collapse. The reporter says "This is it" as if they are waiting for the collapse. Then the other reporter says "What we've been fearing all afternoon has finally happened." Why did they fear a controlled demolition? If it was a secret demolition for money why did the media know about it ahead of time?
There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the fireman out. Conspiracy sites like to bring up the 'Symmetric Collapse' of building 7 and that the building should have fallen over to the south. They show grainy, dark photos of debris piles which were taken well after 9/11 and a debris pile with a grayish, smoky image of building 7 in the background. They deceptively show the north side which was relatively free of damage. As if the Tower should have reached over to the other side of the building and damaged that side to. Here is what the debris pile looked like just after 9/11
Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..". And now comes the most important and telling fact in this photo. Note the west side (Right side in this photo) of the north face is pointing toward the east side (Left side of this photo) where the penthouse was. What caused this? It would not be unreasonable to expect the building to fall toward the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance in this case would be the hole in the back of the building and the hole left by the penthouse. Since the penthouse was on the east and the 20 story hole in the middle, that would make the east and middle the path of least resistance. The conspiracy sites agree with this theory but say it never happened. They say the fact that it didn't happen helps prove controlled demolition. But you see it happen here... What will they say now? "But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "In it's own foot print" you might ask. That's because it is impossible for a 47 story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up of many pieces put together. It's not so much as a solid block as those steel reinforced concrete buildings. This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.
In the following image the east penthouse falls... Now the west penthouse falls...
To put it simply, the building DID fall over backward and to the south-east. Just not like a steel reinforced concrete building would. Another telling photo is this one taken closer to the event date. Note just past building 7 is a small amount of debris on the white building behind it. That building is to the north east corner of building 7. Note about 1/3rd of the east side of the building falling to the north in the photo below. This suggests the building was split by the penthouse collapses most of the way down. One section went to the south-east while a smaller section went to the north. It wasn't that symmetrical.
8/29/06 10:31 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Trust
815 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Aug-06 10:55 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 38367
Below are snapshots from a video taken from the northeast of Building 7 just as it collapses. Note that it has just begun to collapse and it is already tilting to the south. Half way through and it's still tilted to the south. Note the west side of the building has come away from the west face around what used to be the 43rd floor. Light can be seen through the east face windows. Note the angle to the south has increased and so has the space between the west face and the rest of the building. The west face later lays on the Verizon building to the west. While it looks like it's about to hit the ground, it's still almost as high as the white building to the right. That makes it about 20 stories. If the majority of the building fell to the south-east based on the resulting debris locations, as conspiracy theorist point out, it is evidence for a normal collapse by fire. I think they're right. The perpetually perplexed will show you a photo of the Oklahoma City Federal Building and say "Gee, that didn't fall. If that didn't fall with more visible damage why should the WTC 7 fall?". In some ones need to question authority and seem smarter than the rest they may forget an important fact. The OKC Federal building wasn't constructed the same or had it's lower floors on fire for 6 hours. We can see clear as day that the building was not a tube in a tube design. We can see it's lower floors weren't on fire. We can see the columns are covered in concrete. All from the same photo they use to show us how incredibly intelligent they are. http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
8/29/06 10:58 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MR BIG1
78 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Aug-06
Member Since: 07/28/2002
Posts: 13192
thats an excellent opinion and it is amazing how WTC 1 and 2 exploded
8/29/06 11:05 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Aug-06
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 1304
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire That line alone shows how this "debunk" is totally farce. No steel structure building has ever come down from fire, if that was the case they never would have allowed all of the firefighters to enter the Twin Towers would they? Also, it is also known, that if the building was damaged at the bottom of one corner like this site says, the building would not fall straight down. Also, bad idea showing the OKC building, widely known that explosives were in that building. That so called debunking is one of the most pathetic things I have ever read. Clearly it is despertley trying to save an agenda.
8/29/06 11:08 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
WilliamOfOckham
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Aug-06
Member Since: 01/25/2006
Posts: 8639
HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!! Respected forum member Trust just SLAPPED THE LIVING HELL OUT OF RICKY RETARDO, AKA CPRACER16 AKA SHITBOX SANDWICH. WTC 7 Debunked, weirdos!
8/29/06 1:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Trust
815 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Aug-06 01:51 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 38370
"No steel structure building has ever come down from fire" The Windsor building in Madrid experienced a partial collapse - just from fire. No pre-existing structural damage, no storage of diesel fuel, and with fire fighting efforts. If a steel build partially collapsed without pre-existing structural damage, without 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored therein, and with fire fighting efforts, then explain why it is "impossible" for a building with structural damage containing all that fuel and without adequate fire fighting measures to collapse? In fact, make it even simpler: Explain why it is IMPOSSIBLE for a steel building to collapse simply because no steel build had ever completely collpased due to fire. In order for that premise to hold, one must prove that it was impossible for WTC 7 to collapse without explosives, and one cannot do that. It cannot proven that collapse was impossible without explosives. The logic of "it never happened before, so it must be impossible" is so clearly fallacious on its face its astounding that people even invoke it. A person would have to be a complete idiot to cling to the "impossible" argument, and therefore one must concede there is a possibility that the building could have collapsed without explosives. I think it's a fair bet that professional firefighters are not idiots, and they also realized the possibility of the building collapsing. Don't confuse what is 'probable' with what is 'possible.' Maybe it wasn't 'probable,' based on the history of steel building fires, that the building would collapse. Fine, I won't argue that. You can't argue, however, that many things have occured that weren't 'probable' simply because they were 'possible.' Also, you've done your typical fallacious reasoning with this statement: "That line alone shows how this 'debunk' is totally farce." You dispute one point (erroneously), and then claim all other points are therefore wrong ("totally farce"). The argument of "if one contention is wrong, they must all be wrong" is a logical fallacy.
8/29/06 5:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MR BIG1
78 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Aug-06
Member Since: 07/28/2002
Posts: 13198

But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence conspiracy theorist are wrong.

 

GRAVITY IS AMAZING

8/29/06 5:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Hillbilly
29 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Aug-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 8418
lol! Never argue with a lawyer unless you have your facts straight.
9/10/06 9:58 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Trust
815 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-Sep-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 38597
Looks like someone got themselves banned, and all their posts erased. I really disagree with erasing all posts automatically like that. If someone gets banned, fine, but it would be nice if their non-offending posts remained. If hubris, Redneck, CPracer, or MR BIG1 ever get banned, most of the threads in this forum will make little sense with all their posts deleted.
9/12/06 2:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Nitecrawler
2136 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12-Sep-06
Member Since: 06/03/2003
Posts: 19909
Who got banned and deleted?
9/12/06 8:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Trust
815 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12-Sep-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 38673
Someone did. This thread got shorter by about 7-8 posts.
3/1/11 5:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/6/06
Posts: 3461
Al Qaeda is a group formed out of the CIA. Funnny how looking at this old post and how the sites tried to debunk it.


Now even NIST couldnt debunk or explain the collapse.

HAHA
12/19/11 9:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ReneH
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 2597
I beleive that the passport of one of the hijackers that was found in perfect shape in the rubble was a direct intervention from god. How else do you explain that?
12/19/11 9:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Nitecrawler
2136 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/3/03
Posts: 37135
Later Phone Post
11/8/12 7:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
lazermonkey
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/27/04
Posts: 12455

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


Reply Post

This thread has been frozen.