CNN 9/11 footage that offers good non-conspiracy evidence

Originally posted by esdad71
Live not in fear, but don't fall asleep either.

You sir have been snoring for the past 6 years.

Originally posted by Connected
My theory is that Flight 93 was meant to crash into WTC7. Since Flight 93 didn't reach its target, the masterminds of 911 couldn't pull the trigger to the hidden explosives in WTC7 to finish the building off, since a jet alone probably wouldn't finish it alone.

If that were true, why did the firefighters believe that the building was about to collapse from being hit from debris from one of the towers? Just a coincidence that debris did enough damage to a building (that was rigged with explosives) to make them worry about that, or were the firefighters just mistaken?

Originally posted by whiterabbit
If that were true, why did the firefighters believe that the building was about to collapse from being hit from debris from one of the towers?

The firefighters DID NOT believe the that building was about to collapse from being hit from debris.

The firefighters were worried that WTC 1 and 2 were going to completly topple over like a tree and land on WTC 7 which is why it was evacuated so fast.

Originally posted by piacenza
STOP insulting the intelligence of ppl and go on with this stupid BS with lower IQ ppl.
....
BUT STOP INSULTING INTELLIGENT PEOPLE.

Like in this post where you state:

"jet fuels burns incredibly hot at 7000 degrees Celsius, it vaporizes steel within 20 minutes and creates metheor of various metal element that reach temperatures as high as the sun itself.
(an incredible amount of 5 thousand gallon which comes out at around 20 cubic meters sprayed the entire world trade center )"

Ya might want to research that burn temperature.

Originally posted by Connected
The firefighters DID NOT believe the that building was about to collapse from being hit from debris.

Uh, yeah, they were. That's why Silverstein and the fire commander decided to pull the firefighters out of the building.

Guys stop the fight it was obvious that WTC7 was going to naturally collapse.
Probably around 3 to 5% of the building was damaged (unfortunately we have no evidence of that for now) but once a building its damaged more than 1% it will fell on its own footprint as history shows.
When they naturally collapse they usually fell at free fall speed instead when they are demolitions as the stardust they dont.
When the firefighter said it was going to blow they were referring to the natural collapse which causes blowing air to break windows as it actually happened on wtc7.
So yes it did blow: Blow air outside of the window.

Originally posted by Smack
What difference does it really make how it was done? It was done.

Thank you for encapsulating the tone of the Truth Movement so effectively in two short sentences.

Unfortunately, many many people are quite curious as to how (and why) an unconnected cast of 1,000 players could (or would) pull off the grandest and most heinous HEIST in the history of EVER in broad daylight.

It's something else.

At the very least, I want to know how they did it so I can apply their motivational concepts of ABSOLUTE loyalty and secrecy in the face of horrid treachery at the company I work at. I could be the greatest CEO ever.

Originally posted by Smack
If I were inclined to try to convince someone of these facts, I would not choose a person like you. It would be an utterly futile exercise and a waste of my time.

Who exactly would you choose then? People who ALREADY BELIEVE what you believe? I hate to break this to you but the number of people who believe what you believe is a MINISCULE population of the world.

You will have to tap that market sooner or later.

Only "arguing" with people who agree with you, while a favorite pastime of the Truth Movement, is what I refer to as "intellectual incest" and it's a one-way ticket to extinction.

Originally posted by whiterabbit


Uh, yeah, they were. That's why Silverstein and the fire commander decided to pull the firefighters out of the building.

NO YOU ARE 100% WRONG. Silverstein and the fire commander supposidly "pulled the firefighters out" because "there was so much loss of life" in the other WTC's that they didn't even want to chance more deaths by fighting the fires in WTC 7, so they let it burn. The problem though, is that Silverstien and the fire commander decided that at 12:09pm, when ALL FIREFIGHTERS were pulled out of the building at around 10:00am.

Please get you facts straight... please.. I don't want to debate with someone that has ZERO facts correct. I have been researching 911 for 6 years, non stop.

Originally posted by esdad71
Bin Laden did not have ties to the CIA, the Taliban did. Bin LAden cuts his teeth so to say in Afghanistan fighting the jihad alongside Taliban fighters, but he did not have a Langley VISA.

The CIA was involved with the Taliban in the 80's with finacial support and weapons supplys, yes. But they did this by directly getting involved with Bin Laden, who was helping lead the taliban at the time, and who's family was good friends with many investors and government officials before 1980. Infact, James Reynolds Bath, the former director of the BCCI, a bank founded in Pakistan, was directly involved with the Bin Ladens, on behalf of the United States, specifically with Salem Bin Laden, since 1976. In the meantime, the bank he was director of was directly funneling money as "philanthropic contrabutions" to Al Qeada and other terrorist cells. This had been going on while Bath was director, and then further on all the way till they shut the bank down in 91. In the meantime the CIA was also working extensively with the Inter-Services Intelligence of Pakistan, whom happened to be sending considerable contributions to Al Qeada. In the meantime, With the money that the CIA gave James Bath to give to Salem Bin Laden, Salem transferred all those assets to Kalid Bin Mahfouz, whom sent them straight back to Al Qeada.

Now we dont know whether they were aware of all the money being transferred, and who they were dealing with, but I sincerely doubt one of the worlds best intelligence agencies was unaware and oblivious to all these happenings. They probably were even deliberate. We'll never know. But in short, yes, they were involved not just directly with Bin Laden, butalso his family, and Al Qeada.

Bin Laden is to blame, not Bush.

50/50.

Bin Laden sent planned it, but at the very least, with all the intelligence going around, from other countries, from our own intelligence operations, from a written report sitting on Bush's desk, there was a massive ammount of incompetence in the Government leading up to that day, one of massive proportions, from the highest (bush) to the lowest. And if they did theyre job, and follow theyre own intelligence reports, headed the warnings of MI6, interpol, the EIA, MOSSAD, etc, it could have been prevented. And simply because of that, its straight down the middle of responsibility. Thats Criminal Negligence on a grand scale.

Originally posted by Connected
[NO YOU ARE 100% WRONG. Silverstein and the fire commander supposidly "pulled the firefighters out" because "there was so much loss of life" in the other WTC's that they didn't even want to chance more deaths by fighting the fires in WTC 7, so they let it burn.

You're half right.

They did pull the firefighters out because they didn't believe they'd be able to put out the fire, AND they were worried about the building collapsing.

But don't take my word for it. Take the word of one of the firefighters they told:

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down.

Originally posted by piacenza
Guys stop the fight it was obvious that WTC7 was going to naturally collapse.

ITS WAS OBVIOUS???!?!?!?! Why on Earth are their multiple quotes of firefighters saying they had no clue even the WTC 1 and 2 would collapse? Let alone WTC 7?? You are insane to say such a thing.

Originally posted by piacenza
Probably around 3 to 5% of the building was damaged (unfortunately we have no evidence of that for now) but once a building its damaged more than 1% it will fell on its own footprint as history shows.

Are you joking?!?!!?!? WTC 1 2 and 7 were designed to withstand Earthquakes, Jet impacts, hurricans, super storms and winds, and terrorist attacks. No structural engineer in the world would design a building that would fall with only 1 to 5% damage. You have to be totaly out of your mind.

Originally posted by piacenza
When they naturally collapse they usually fell at free fall speed instead when they are demolitions as the stardust they dont.

No, if they naturally collapse they naturaly fall on top of the rest of the building, causing RESISTANCE. Free fall speed = no resistance. There is absolutly no single way in this entire universe for a building to collapse without resistance, unless it is a controlled demo.

You are pretty much saying that if a sky diver had to land in a thick forest, he would fall right through the trees and hit the ground without even slowing down. Thats insane, because everyone knows the trees would cause significant resistance and slow him down before he hits the ground.

Originally posted by piacenza
When the firefighter said it was going to blow they were referring to the natural collapse which causes blowing air to break windows as it actually happened on wtc7.
So yes it did blow: Blow air outside of the window.

Which firefighter said it was going to blow? Please show your evidence. Also, the windows used on sky rise buildings are SAFETY GLASS WINDOWS. They have a protective film layered inside of them so that they do NOT shatter into huge pieces and land on pedestrians on the ground. They are also designed to NOT blow out, like you and many others claim. They are designed to shatter into 10000's of pieces but stick together. There is no air pressure pushing outside through the windows, because the building's floors are NOT air tight.


WOW there should be an age limit on ATS.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
You're half right.

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down.

No I am 100% right. Also, please post links to your quotes, before I start making up my own too.

the CIA did not directly fund, but I am sure that funds meant for one thing could be traced.

When I stated it was not Bushs fault, it was because the previous administration had ample oppurtunity, and did nothing. Why do people not wonder more about that? After the USS Cole, we could have had Bin Laden again. I would believe a left wing cover up before I would the right wing pulling off 9/11. I often ponder how people can say Bush is a tard in one breathe and the mastermind of 9/11 in another.


It was failed intel,interdepartmental territorial pissings and an attitude that it could never happen. People were talking, but no one was listening. In the spring of 2001 we began to take notice, and at that point it was too little, too late.

This thread however is about the similarities and non similarities to The Hotel in vegas, and WTC 7.

Originally posted by Connected
No I am 100% right. Also, please post links to your quotes, before I start making up my own too.

Way to take it in the gutter by accusing me of making up quotes. I didn't make up a damn thing.

Here's your source:

www.nytimes.com...

Firefighter's name is Richard Banaciski.


You're wrong. The firefighters were aware that WTC 7 was unstable.

Also, why would the WTC 7 be attacked by a jet? I may have been snoring, but what hav eyou people been smoking?

Originally posted by Connected
No, if they naturally collapse they naturaly fall on top of the rest of the building, causing RESISTANCE. Free fall speed = no resistance. There is absolutly no single way in this entire universe for a building to collapse without resistance, unless it is a controlled demo.

There WAS resistance.

But when half a building comes crashing down onto a single floor, the resistance it offers is practically nothing. However strong the floor of a steel building is, it CANNOT support the force of a huge chunk of the building crashing down onto it. The floors did offer resistance, but it was so little that it was negligible. They gave out almost instantly.

WTC7 got attacked by a jet now?

I thought it was holograms, made by the reptillians so they can use this event to plant the microchips in our hands that will bring about the anti-christ and issue a new world order before the apocalypse of 2012 when Mu rises from the sea and the aliens make contact?

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Firefighter's name is Richard Banaciski.

You're wrong. The firefighters were aware that WTC 7 was unstable.

You are right.. that WAS Richard Banaciski that said that quote... you want to know what else Richard said??

Let me show you:

“There was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”--Firefighter Richard Banaciski

www.911truth.org...


I still hold my ground..

Originally posted by WolfofWar
WTC7 got attacked by a jet now?

I thought it was holograms, made by the reptillians so they can use this event to plant the microchips in our hands that will bring about the anti-christ and issue a new world order before the apocalypse of 2012 when Mu rises from the sea and the aliens make contact?

Go back to school and learn to read... please...

Originally posted by whiterabbit
There WAS resistance.

No there WAS NOT. If there was, it wouldn't have fallen at free fall speeds.. DUHHHH