20 min. clip from Alex Jones newest documentry

why dont we start by going here....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

get back to me with anything NEW ..

I don't understand, that thread tells me nothing about any damage to building 7. I'm not gonna read 4 pages to look for it.

Point me to something that shows WTC 7 was damaged to the point it would callapse when buildings closeer to WTC1&2 were unharmed.

It's funny to see how people are still in denial. This is not a conspiracy this was a plan. It was put in place a long time ago. It's like a chess game, you set your pieces in place, then you attack. Daddy Bush in the CIA. I don't need to go on.

People were told to stand down and ignore. NORAD, failed. NSA, failed. They really missed that "chatter."

Wake up people it's coming.

Originally posted by ANOK
I don't understand, that thread tells me nothing about any damage to building 7. I'm not gonna read 4 pages to look for it.

Point me to something that shows WTC 7 was damaged to the point it would callapse when buildings closeer to WTC1&2 were unharmed.

4 pages?? try 22 pages. Its been done over and over. Chew on this..If it was a "conspiricy" then what was it? Its been nearly 5 years now. Do you think we did all this just to invade Iraq? OMG..We wouldnt need to kill 3000 people and destroy part of Manhatten. We as Americans dont really care who we invade. We just would have done it regardless. A handfull of protesters wouldnt have deterred them. Think about it.

The only real conspiricy if from the nut jobs who run the web sites that make all these false claims. They take a snip from here and there and build a whole site from it. More people take it as gosple truth and visit the sites and more people get paid. Thats the only conspiricy.

There are those for whom no amount of evidence will be good enough for. There will be those who will grasp any little article that agrees with them and hold it up for al lto see and say " LOOK, I TOLD YOU !!!" Its a pointless thing to do and can go on forever.

The facts are facts. They tried it once. It took them nearly 7 years to do it again ( and get it right). Im sure someone in the government had this info pass across their desk at some time. It probably passed along with millions of other little bits of info as well. We didnt think it would happen. Its as simple as that.

The closet thing to a conspiricy I think there was, was this: If one of the 200 or so FBI agents that were assigned to investigate white stains on blue dresseswere actually in the office taking phone calls from flight schools in Florida, there probably wouldnt be 3000 dead Americans in the bottom of Manhatten. Thats it. Thats the only problem I have. We fell asleep at the wheel.

Thats all. Nothing more or less. This isnt a campaign of global domination. If we wanted to, we can invade anywhere we like. That whole part of the world is screwed up and we've been avoiding it for to long. I would rather get it over with now, then wait untill one of them decides to lob anuke our way. This "war on terror" is nothing more than preventive maintainence, performed just a little to late.

Right on spliff4020!!!!!

You have voted spliff4020 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

Again splif you are avoiding my question...

Show me where there was enough damage to bring down WTC 7...
You can't.
Spin the official version of the story anyway you want. It don't add up.
History is full of events like 9-11. Events created by governments to full fill an agenda.
There is a lot more to 9-11 than just an excuse to invade Iraq.
Basically the gov has given themselves an open ended excuse to invade, arrest, torture any one that they feel is a threat to their power and control.
They have got the population so scared of terrorism it will allow them to do almost anything if they stick the terrorist tag on it.
Terrorism is not the big problem they claim. Or at least it wasn't until the "war" on it.
It's not true that the US can just invade anyone they want. They would not have been able to invade Iraq without 9-11 or something similar. They could not have implemented the patriot acts without 9-11 or something similar.
Read some history that isn't written by bias pro government lackeys and you will see the obvious patterns.

Originally posted by spliff4020
The closet thing to a conspiricy I think there was, was this: If one of the 200 or so FBI agents that were assigned to investigate white stains on blue dresseswere actually in the office taking phone calls from flight schools in Florida, there probably wouldnt be 3000 dead Americans in the bottom of Manhatten. Thats it. Thats the only problem I have. We fell asleep at the wheel.

Refering to Gary Condit?
More so a conspiracy is that Bush told the F.B.I. to back off the Bin Ladens before 911. It's been said too many times and referenced even more. Just search, google etc....
I think what is really hurting this conspiracy is that any time a shred of evidence comes out concerning 911, it is imediatly denied by people like yourself. There is more evidence of a conpiracy then there is evidence of "we fell asleep at the wheel", as you put it.

edit:

BTW, spiff, is it s.o.p for the govn't to pre-wire and set explosives in major buildings like wtc 7? Are there more buildings set this way? Couldn't wtc 1 and 2 be done the same way?





[edit on 27-3-2005 by notmindcontrolled]

Originally posted by notmindcontrolled

Originally posted by spliff4020
The closet thing to a conspiricy I think there was, was this: If one of the 200 or so FBI agents that were assigned to investigate white stains on blue dresseswere actually in the office taking phone calls from flight schools in Florida, there probably wouldnt be 3000 dead Americans in the bottom of Manhatten. Thats it. Thats the only problem I have. We fell asleep at the wheel.

Refering to Gary Condit?
More so a conspiracy is that Bush told the F.B.I. to back off the Bin Ladens before 911. It's been said too many times and referenced even more. Just search, google etc....
I think what is really hurting this conspiracy is that any time a shred of evidence comes out concerning 911, it is imediatly denied by people like yourself. There is more evidence of a conpiracy then there is evidence of "we fell asleep at the wheel", as you put it.

Gary Condit??? LOL..no..Clinton and Monica. The whole friggin country was soo concerned with that, that noone payed any attention to the REAL problems. You can thank the REPUBLICANS for that. Conspiricy? No. Stupid wastes of time? Yes.

Again splif you are avoiding my question...

ANOK ----> Heres your answer that I keep "avoiding"

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline “kink” that signals WTC 7’s progressive collapse. PHOTOGRAPH BY NEW YORK OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT


Is this answer enough for you? I provide FACTS not OPINIONS..huge difference.






[edit on 27-3-2005 by spliff4020]

Dude NIST is a government agency. It's the government that is involved here. Obviously they're gonna side with themselves...

Again show me EVIDENCE that building 7 was damaged to the point of collapse when other buildings CLOSER to WTC 1&2 did not catch fire or collapse.
You can't...

Don't you think it's odd that the buildings that collapsed were owned by Silverstein and the ones that didn't were not?
And how did building 7 catch fire?

You are not presenting any facts.
There's more facts in 2 minutes of that Alex Jones video clip than in all of what you have posted.
Show me the proof, not what some government agency and government experts say after the fact.
You think the government wouldn't lie to you?
Again read some history and you'll see it's full of governments lying.

[edit on 27/3/2005 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK
Dude NIST is a government agency. It's the government that is involved here. Obviously they're gonna side with themselves...

Again show me EVEDENCE that building 7 was damaged to the point of collapse when other buildings CLOSER to WTC 1&2 did not catch fire or collapse.
You can't...

Don't you think it's odd that the buildings that collapsed were owned by Silverstein and the ones that didn't were not?

Let's not forget the building right next to 7. If Spiff theory is correct, then by his own theroy, the building next to 7 should of been brought down too. He (spiff) posted a pic of the debris and dust that surrounded both buildings (7 and the one next to it).

Yep, there would have been a lot more building collapsing than just 1,2 &7

And look at all those metal pillars melting....

Here is a piece of info from an eyewitness. A friend of mine was a firefighter during 9-11 he left Ohio after the towers fell and reached NY City in the morning to help out He was one of the guys on top of the piles looking for survivors. He told me about trying to pull a guy out from the ruble that was dead and he said that when he tried to pull him out by his arm his arm just came off. He said he had to use a concrete saw to cut off limbs of people in order to get them out from under piles of steel girders etc.. He also showed me pictures that he took. I do not want to see them ever again. He said that they had some sort of horn that would blow occasionaly becasue they thought that wtc7 was going to fall down. When the horn blew they all ran for cover. They decided to take it out due to the safety off the rescue workers.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
They decided to take it out due to the safety off the rescue workers.

What do you mean by this exactly?
You saying they decided to demolish, or "pull", the building due to the safety of the rescue workers?

If that is the case then pls explain how they did that?
Apparently the building was engulfed in flames, no?
Do you know it takes at least a couple of days to set up a controlled demolition?
How did they set up explosives in a couple of hours, in a building engulfed in flames?

And how was building 7 in danger of harming rescue workers when other building around WTC7 and WTC1&2 were not?

You see none of it makes any sense now does it?

I was not there dude. Just relaying info that I heard from someone that was there. Rescue workers and support crews were working in other areas than just around the twin towers.

Setting up demolitions can take weeks when you have to worry about other buildings etc.. when you blow the building. When you do not have to worry about that you can blow it in a much quicker time frame especially in an emergency.

If you want to discuss this subject in a civil manner I am all for it. I will be talking to my buddy Wensday night and will ask him a few questions pertaining to this. Are there any direct questions you would like me to ask him for you?

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Here is a piece of info from an eyewitness. A friend of mine was a firefighter during 9-11 he left Ohio after the towers fell and reached NY City in the morning to help out He was one of the guys on top of the piles looking for survivors. He told me about trying to pull a guy out from the ruble that was dead and he said that when he tried to pull him out by his arm his arm just came off. He said he had to use a concrete saw to cut off limbs of people in order to get them out from under piles of steel girders etc.. He also showed me pictures that he took. I do not want to see them ever again. He said that they had some sort of horn that would blow occasionaly becasue they thought that wtc7 was going to fall down. When the horn blew they all ran for cover. They decided to take it out due to the safety off the rescue workers.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...:00am%20Sept%2011%202001

"9:59 a.m:
The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses. It was hit by Flight 175 at 9:02. [Washington Post 9/12/01; MSNBC 9/22/01; AP 8/19/02; ABC News 9/11/02; New York Times 9/12/01 (B); CNN 9/12/01; New York Times 9/12/01; US Army authorized seismic study; USA Today 12/20/01]"

"10:28 a.m :
The World Trade Center's north tower collapses. It was hit by Flight 11 at 8:46. [10:28, MSNBC, 9/22/01, 10:28, CNN, 9/12/01, 10:28, New York Times, 9/12/01, 10:28, AP, 8/19/02, 10:28 (based on seismic data), New York Times, 9/12/01 (B), 10:29, Washington Post, 9/12/01, 10:28:31, ] The death toll could have been much worse—an estimated 15,000 people made it out of the WTC to safety. [St. Petersburg Times 9/8/02]"

"5:20 p.m :
Building 7 of the WTC complex, a 47-story tower, collapses from ancillary damage. No one is killed. [MSNBC 9/22/01; CNN 9/12/01; Washington Post 9/12/01; AP 8/19/02] "




So your saying that your friend left after the towers came down (10:28 a.m on 9-11) from Ohio and got there in the morning on 9-11, cause that is the day that wtc 7 was brought down. That, my friend, is a lie and you know it! It is at least a 3 hr. drive and at most a 6 hr. drive from Ohio to NYC and probably all together, starting after 10:28 a.m. 9-11, at least 2 hrs. from the time you leave your location, arive at the airport in Ohio, fly to NYC and arive at ground zero. BTW, Ohio and NYC are in the same timezone.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Setting up demolitions can take weeks when you have to worry about other buildings etc.. when you blow the building. When you do not have to worry about that you can blow it in a much quicker time frame especially in an emergency.

Did you actually see the vid of WTC7 collapsing?
It came down perfectly. If they did an "emergency pull" it would not have collapsed the way it did.
If it had then the whole process of taking weeks, as you yourself admit, to rig a building for demolition would not be necessary. In business time is money.
If they could "pull" WTC7 (whilst engulfed in flames btw/note the contradiction) in a couple of hours then they would do that to all buildings.
Sry dude but your story is so thin a blind man could see through it.

Ask your firemen friend how they rigged WTC7 for demo whilst avoided the flames that were supposedly hot enough to melt steel.
Also ask him why other buildings closer to WTC1&2 were relatively unharmed and buildings around WTC7 were also miraculously unharmed.

I can't wait to hear how you spin that one. I was born at night, but not last night.

[edit on 27/3/2005 by ANOK]

Notmindcontrolled, it is actually a 10-hour drive. The dude drove there. BTW dude you could not fly after the towers came down on 9-11 but you already know that now don’t you boy. So he was not there when wtc7 came down but he told me that the NYFD took the building out. When I asked him about wtc7 he just said the NYFD had it taken out due to safety reasons. When I talked to him I did not know when wtc7 was brought down. He would know since he spent many hours with the leadership in the NYFD. If you can fins someone else that was there you can ask them about the horn warning the rescue workers to get out. My friend was supposedly the first fireman from out off state to show up and help out. He was on top of one of the piles pulling dead people out. He made a lot of friends in the fire department, some of them in very high places. If you do not believe me I could not give a #.

If they did an "emergency pull" it would not have collapsed the way it did.

Are you an expert? How do you know? From Alex Jones?
How many of his videos have you watched of his. He is like the preachers on tv trying to get your money. He never really tells the whole truth. I remember a video when he was talking aobut Marines taking over a town and stopping people and searching their vehicles. What he did not tell you was that the people had a sign in there car stating tha they wanted to be a voluntare in the training exersice. Did you see his Bohemian Grove video? Talking about spinning a story and making something out of nothing. Jones is about making money. If you want to believe that crap it is up to you but you are a fool for it.

Well the firmen in the Alex Jones vid were there and we all know that. Did you watch it? Watch it again and listen to what they say.
We only have your word that your friend was there.
And your friend can say what he likes, don't mean it actualy what happened. I'm going with the vid firemen.
It's amazing what rumours fly around when something like this happens. With all the emotions peoples view of what is going on can be very distorted.
It's not until much later that the real truth usualy comes out.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Are you an expert? How do you know? From Alex Jones?

No I'm not but the pictures speak for themselves IMHO.

It really wouldn't matter if Alex Jones is a certified loony.
The facts about that day speak for themselves. He isn't the only one seeing the contradictions and outright lies about that day.
You think the gov doesn't have motives to lie to us?
They have more to gain in lying than Alex Jones does.

You think the witnesses in that vid are lying too?
You think the firemen have something to gain by lying?
Forget Alex Jones just watch the vid and listen to what he says.
Also watch 9-11 in plane site, which was produced by Dave Vonkliest, nothing to do with Alex Jones and it says pretty much the same things.

And here is an interesting pic. Remember the POD under the a/c contraversy...This is a military version of the 767. Hmmmmm...


[edit on 27/3/2005 by ANOK]