Fox News Reports on Collapse of Building 7 Before It Happens

[eots]

with a crime of the magnitude of 9-11 a proper investigator would want to determine who at Reuters put it put on the wire.. from who they sourced the information.. and why this fact was later denied and the facts withheld..and don't even bother to tell me they wouldn't ..I grew up with detectives..

 

[DiveCon]

with a crime of the magnitude of 9-11 a proper investigator would want to determine who at Reuters put it put on the wire.. from who they sourced the information.. and why this fact was later denied and the facts withheld..and don't even bother to tell me they wouldn't ..I grew up with detectives..

so, you really think detectives would be tracking down an errant news report?



REALLY?!?!?!?!?!

 

[eots]

yes ..they would indeed.. if where examining .. did this building collapse due to fire or was foul play involved ..

 

[DiveCon]

yes ..they would indeed.. if where examining .. did this building collapse due to fire or was foul play involved ..

no, they would examine the BUILDINGS debris
and they did and found ZERO evidence of explosives


so, why would they then waste time following up on an errant news report that was meaningless


hint: they WOULDNT

 

[eots]

no the evidence was quickly disposed of.. cleared out.. sold as scrape..

 

[DiveCon]

no the evidence was quickly disposed of.. cleared out.. sold as scrape..

no, it wasnt
not "quickly" like you guys claim
and investigators had full access to it for months
they took samples and ran their tests

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1u6qZyQ4w[/ame]

 

[DiveCon]

YouTube - This is an Orange

too bad it lies

 

[Big_D]

and if you where investigating this crime that that assumption would suffice for you ?

It makes much more sense than the alternative. Would it really make sense to you that Bush and company actually told the BBC that they were going to attack themselves? I never heard of an instance in the history of the world when someone informed their enemy that they were going to attack them. Wouldn't you admit that this doesn't make any sense at all?

As I said, this is not the first time in history where the media made a mistake. Again, Pope John Paul II, Joe dimaggio, Will Farrell, Fidel Castro, Dick Cheney, Ronald Reagan and many others were reported dead while they were still alive.

 

[Toro]

no, it wasnt
not "quickly" like you guys claim
and investigators had full access to it for months
they took samples and ran their tests

May 29 2002: As the last steel column of the demolished World Trade Center was removed Tuesday, construction workers at the site were honored for their work there since September 11th.

http://www.wndu.com/news/052002/news_14322.php

"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".

http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm


Recycled Steel


Also

"I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel.

Noam Chomsky
http://blog.zmag.org/node/2779

 

[Big_D]

YouTube - This is an Orange

Again, you put your faith in youtube videos that could have came from anyone instead of what the experts think. http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
This paper gives their reasoning why all of the WTC buildings fell and it was written by an engineering expert.

Look at this photo here:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg
As you can clearly see there has been significant damage to the building. Anyone can see from this that the damage should be enough to bring down the structure.

What I do not understand is if the govt is behind 9/11 why would they have brought down WTC 7 at all? Most people didn't even know of the building until these conspiracy theories started popping up. It would seem that they were just simply putting a target on their back if they decided for no reason at all to bring down third building. Again, there was NO reason to bring down this building.

 

[eots]

Again, you put your faith in youtube videos that could have came from anyone instead of what the experts think. http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
This paper gives their reasoning why all of the WTC buildings fell and it was written by an engineering expert.

Look at this photo here:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg
As you can clearly see there has been significant damage to the building. Anyone can see from this that the damage should be enough to bring down the structure.

What I do not understand is if the govt is behind 9/11 why would they have brought down WTC 7 at all? Most people didn't even know of the building until these conspiracy theories started popping up. It would seem that they were just simply putting a target on their back if they decided for no reason at all to bring down third building. Again, there was NO reason to bring down this building.

from this photo it is clear the building would fall to one side if anything
not evenly in the controlled manner in which it did..that is not possible from the damage shown in the picture

 

[DiveCon]

from this photo it is clear the building would fall to one side if anything
not evenly in the controlled manner in which it did..that is not possible from the damage shown in the picture

it DID
it didnt fall straight down
it fell away from the camera in MOST of the vid clips you use
if you look for one from another angle you will see

 

[eots]

it fell into its own footprint at free fall speed..

 

[DiveCon]

it fell into its own footprint at free fall speed..

it did not
it fell over into WTC6

 

[eots]

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)

YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)

 

[DiveCon]

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)

YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)

more bullshit and lies

 

[Big_D]

from this photo it is clear the building would fall to one side if anything
not evenly in the controlled manner in which it did..that is not possible from the damage shown in the picture

It didn't fall in an exact controlled manner. If it did, it would have damaged the surrounding buildings: "Fiterman Hall, located at 30 West Broadway between Barclay and Park Place, was damaged in the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) when falling debris from 7 World Trade Center left it with significant damage in its south façade."
Lower Manhattan : Fiterman Hall

"The 32-story Verizon Building at 140 West St. was one of the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. It suffered damage when a 60-ft.-tall pile of rubble collapsed against it from the fall of 52-story Seven World Trade Center office building, which stood across the street. "

Verizon Building Restoration

Can you inform me of the logic to bring down WTC 7? It does not make sense to have brought this building down for no apparent reason at all.

 

[eots]

it fell in a manner which would of required a failure of all trusses at the exact same instance ...even tho the damage and fire was unevenly distributed

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ-VcQKN7FY]YouTube - NIST manipulated parameters[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvZxBnHF_YY&feature=related]YouTube - Patriots and Veterans for 9/11 Truth[/ame]

 

[DiveCon]

it did not
it fell over into WTC6

uh, no, eots