you tried to put words in my mouth... homey don't play that !!! you asked what the significance of the pristine passport was and i answered you.. quite simple "setup boy." i can see that magic passport now slowly floating all the way down and coming to rest on a pile of rubble. then johhny on the spot sees it and turns it in to the FBI immediately. case closed lmaooooooooooooooooo btw, did you like the simpson video?
An open mind. A mind that isn't unduly influenced by extreme nationalistic pride affecting so many Americans. A mind that doesn't look for what it wants to believe but what the evidence indicates - in other words - an honest mind. A mind that isn't afraid of a truth it doesn't like. No American wants to believe that the horrible event of 9-11 was an inside job. As an American, this was a horrible conclusion to come to. But I had to be honest with myself despite the feelings that this understanding brought. http://911research.wtc7.net/
Don't you mean - An empty mind A mind that is unduly influenced by extreme Anti Statist rhetoric that affects so many paranoid schizophrenics A mind that looks for what it wants to believe and what no evidence indicates - in other words - a true believer A mind that is afraid of a truth it doesn't like No American wants to believe that the horrible event of 9/11 was an inside job. As an American, this was a horrible conclusion to come to. But you had to be honest with your beliefs, despite the lack of evidence to support your position, and the utter inability to counter answers to your "questions" about the events of 9/11. http://www.debunking911.com/
This site is easily ripped apart by anyone who knows the facts and isn't swayed by what they prefer to beleive. For instance: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm Discusses the collapse of Building 7: A few points: In comparing WTC7 to the Bankers Trust(which didn't collapse), which were roughly in the same perimeter of the collapse, the site says: 1. Fire doesn't cause steel framed buildings to collapse Have a look(Madrid fire): Notice: A) Steel framed building B) Fires on multiple floors, and floor wide C) Building gutted by fire, frame remains intact, no collapse There's no comparison when comparing a few small fires in WTC 7 to this. 2. That's interesting. How does debri from a falling WTC1,2 push the *interior* columns of WTC7 out? And even if it could, there's no *pictoral* evidence of this. Pure fantasy. Next point: The site shows this photo as evidence of "large fires": Then says: Duh. Of course it is. This is obviously the dust and debris from WTC1,2 collapse, not fire from WTC7. Next point, Silverstein's comment: The website tries to make out that Silverstein is referring to getting the firefighters out of the building with the "pull it" comment. Numerous references are made of the use of the word "pull" in referencing pulling firefighters out, because of a fear that the building might collapse. If this were true, it's interesting why they might come to this conclusion and not come to the same conclusion regarding other buildings, most closer to the WTC, which did not collapse. But just about this one, a building not visibly damaged much from the collapse, a steel framed building - where it is known that fires simply don't cause steel framed buildings to collapse. At least, not before or after 911. In any case, this is the immediate context of Silverstein's comment: Do you see any reference to firefighters getting out of the building here when using the "pull it" comment? No, the comment is referring to the building - and is even referenced as such in the last sentence: And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse. If this is referring to firefighters exiting the building just before collapse - how fortunate they got out right in time! Sounds like a great hollywood flick. I really don't think I need to read the rest of this website. It's an insult to thinking people.
Yeah, just like these guys: Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Critics of 9/11 Commission Report http://patriotsquestion911.com/
I have not gone through this thread, but IMO anyone who honestly examines the collapse of building 7 and still believes that it was not brought down by controlled demolition has been completely brainwashed by the system. I have yet to come across any plausible explanation for the collapse of building 7 apart from controlled demolition. As far as I'm aware the final report on building 7 has not even been released after all these years, so it would seem that even the powers that be cannot make a plausible statement on it. If anyone has any ideas on how that building could have come down without a controlled demolition, please say.
We'll start here : http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi This is a video of 7 and the amount of smoke coming from it. Mr empty mind above says it's obviously dust from the collapse of 1 and 2. But one can clearly see, as the camera pans up and down the entire height of 7, that the smoke is CLEARLY coming from 7. Now go here : http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm and read the firemens' quotes about the amount of fire, how the building was "bulging" between floors 10-13, and some of their personal reactions to seeing the amount of damage that 7 received from falling debris of the collapse of 1 - they have some idea..... NIST has some idea also : http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf Lots more out there - now don't you be a Mr empty mind too....
Thanks for the links, but IMO, much of it is unconfirmed and none of it fully explains how building 7 not only became the first steel framed building in history to have been brought down by fire but also how it could have fallen in about 7 seconds (from when it started collapsing, as fast as a billiard ball being dropped from the top). I suggest that you watch the Silverstein interview again, look at his expression and actually listen to what he said before relying on the opinions of others. God gave you eyes to see with, ears to hear with and a brain to think with. You can see him towards the end in this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-999558027849894376&q=911+Mysteries+-+Demolitions After looking at the interview if you still believe the reports that he really said something else, then you'll believe anything IMO. The other two videos in the series are here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1162851149755261569&sourceid=zeitgeist http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043&q=911+Mysteries+-+Demolitions You will also find plenty of actual video taped interviews with firemen, engineers etc above (and scattered all over the internet) that in my mind leave many serious questions begging for an answer