This image shows the topography of the WTC complex after the attacks. Notice the large hole in the ground where WTC 6 is located. The center part of WTC 6 collapsed. The mysterious explosion in the clip below is likely what caused this large crater in the center of WTC 6.

Note: Tower #1 is the north tower and Tower #2 is the south tower.






[Edited on February 24, 2004 at 10:42 AM. Reason : ..]

2/24/2004 10:36:38 AM

another photo of what it looked like after the south tower collapsed:



...notice the light grey dust clouds everywhere

http://www.media-criticism.com/911_Theory_10_2003.html

[Edited on February 24, 2004 at 10:51 AM. Reason : ..]

2/24/2004 10:50:26 AM

^I actually thought it was two buildings the first time i looked at it, cause the angle and bright edge of the tower causes that. but after i saw that guys MS paint i saw my mistake. if you look at that clip you can clearly see the tv antenna of the north tower coming from the middle, making it obvious there is only one building. just how i saw it, not attacking you for once, but showing how even i was mislead for a brief moment.

2/24/2004 12:10:34 PM

9/11 Victim's Families are upset with "9/11 commission" (The Star-Ledger of New Jersey):

Quote :

"Kean feels the wrath of irate 9/11 families Thursday, February 12, 2004 BY BOB BRAUN Star-Ledger Staff The head of the national 9/11 commission yesterday came under tough, often emotional questioning from families of the terror victims concerned the panel has too little time to finish its investigation and is prejudging its conclusions. The family members met for three hours with the commission's chairman, Thomas Kean, a day after the panel compromised with the White House over access to classified Oval Office intelligence documents. Members of the Family Steering Committee monitoring the commission's work said they were upset that the panel did not get full access to important documents, and angry over a published comment by Kean that the White House intelligence material contained "no smoking guns." ...Emerging from their closed-door meeting with Kean, which was punctuated by shouts and table-pounding, family members expressed unhappiness that Kean appeared to have been pre-empting the investigation. ...The meeting was scheduled to last two hours but ran much longer. Through the door, the relatives could clearly be heard shouting at Kean. "Who is hiding what?" said one participant. "You've got the power, why don't you use it," said another. http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-13/107657006095191.xml"

[Edited on February 24, 2004 at 12:32 PM. Reason : ..]

2/24/2004 12:29:02 PM

Quote :

"English Smocking is embroidery on pleats that have been pleated before smocking. It is an art form whose origin has been obscured in history but has been handed down from generation to generation much like the sagas, songs and myths, however it's roots are traceable to a point through looking at the art of the past and in stitchery. If you look at paintings from the Italian and German Renaissance you will see lots of examples of smocking on mens shirts and ladies chemises. Italian Shirring, which has it's roots in the basic running stitch, in my opinion is a form of smocking all dressed up. How it all started? There are clues but nothing has been written down until the late 19th century as with all fold traditions smocking was handed down from generation to generation. We find examples of smocking or embroidery on pleated fabric all around the world tucked away in museums from indigenous cultures to examples of smocking in paintings and wooden carvings as early as the 12th century, with also mentions of an embroidered smoc in Elizabeth the 1st's household accounting. Sarah Douglas, author of the Pleater Manual, has also stated that she saw a piece of embroidery in the Embroiderer's Collection from a Danish Bog which to her eye looking like early smocking, dating back to 1175BC! When smocking really started we don't know but according to tradition in England 'smocking has been around forever'./B> Today, besides English Smocking there are also a couple of other styles of contemporary smocking. The first is North American Smocking which appears to have been either invented or a form of an old style promoted by Butterick & Co. late 19th Century, which was very popular from the 30's through the 60's. This style consisted of iron-on transfers of pairs of dots formed in a pattern that while stitching made up a smocking design and pleats at the same time. Today you will find this early North American style not so popular among the major pattern companies, much to the dismay of women who learnt in the 50's and 60's and who are coming back to smocking. The pattern companies have now shifted to the English style of smocking due to it's popularity in the magazines Creative Needle, Sew Beautiful and Australian Smocking and Embroidery and are now including in their smocking patterns a sheet of iron-on transfer dots for you to make up the pleats first and then do the stitching. (I have also seen recently that the major pattern companies are also going back through their archives and are now printing up the old dot to dot method of smocking.) The second style evolved from smocking on gingham, is called counterchange smocking where you use striped fabric, gingham or dotted fabric, and mark where you place your stitches. The history of Counterchange in America has an interesting place in pre and post civil war southern life and has advanced greatly in the past 10 years into a unique form of picture smocking without cables. Here is an image of a counterchange design plate by Ann Halley, a smocking designer responsible for bringing counterchange to all of our attention, called "Ring around the Rosey". As you can see the designer utilized and manipulated the uniformity of striped fabric to create teddy bears, waves and hearts. Very clever. "

http://www.random.org/stuffipulled.html

2/24/2004 12:42:18 PM

Here are 2 videos that also cleary illustrate that the white (light gray) cloud you think was an explosion that caused the fall of the tower was in fact the dispersal cloud that resulted AFTER the fall of the South Tower. The first shows you that there was in fact no cloud of smoke before either tower fell (look at all the blue to the right as the camera moves). The second clip shows plain as day THE ENTIRE video (rather than 8 frames like your animation does) of the tower collapse and emergence of a white/light gray puff of smoke where the alleged "explosion" appears.
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/south_2.mpg
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/010912%20-%203rd%20clip.mpg

Seriously, just stop.

2/24/2004 1:37:34 PM

Quote :

"Photographs Suggest Bombs in the Twin Towers"

Ok, no. No no no no no. Honestly, what drugs do you take daily? Can I have some? Because if there are drugs out there that make people as unbelieveably stupid as you, then I want to spread them across the whole world. That way I can take over the world from a bunch of moronic idiots who'll believe anything I say. I can see it now, "Look, I have a still-frame edited picture from a webpage that claims Methos is your God! Obey me!" "Okay!" See? Easy.

Just what in the fuck makes you think those TINY LITTLE DOTS are bombs? This reminds me of that "video" you had of the "missle" about 2-3 pages ago. Have you even considered for one second that the videos and pictures you show have been edited or changed? (And very badly I might add)

Second,

Quote :

"One reason it is clear that both towers are still standing (from just looking at the clip) is because you DO NOT SEE the light gray colored dust that would be there if the south tower was collapsing or had just collapsed. Such a light gray dust cloud would be WIDER than the building. All you see is DARK/BLACK smoke. (This dark black smoke is the smoke from the crash of the second plane into the south tower...CNN confirmed that this video was shot at 9:04am). Therefore, we know that the light colored dust cloud rising in the clip below is not from the collapse of the south tower."

Yea, I'm looking at the clip. You know what I see? The graphic on the right had side that shows Pause, then Play, then SKIP FORWARD. Have YOU noticed that? Have you also noticed that as the videocamera zooms out the smoke to the left of the tower has ceased to move? Is that smoke not a lighter grey? Could that not be the smoke from the collapsed tower?

Don't you think its odd that the person who made this "clip" paused and skipped around, and yet only showed about 5 seconds of actual footage from the tv? I'm pretty certain that if the footage on the tv had continued, you would have seen that smoke to the left expand into this wider dust cloud you so desperately want to see.

And besides, lets assume you're right. Lets say both towers ARE in that clip. Where is the second tower? Where is it standing? Those towers were not that close together, as I recall. I don't know if it would be possible to find an angle where you could only see one. So I'm asking you, WHERE IS THE OTHER TOWER STANDING?

2/24/2004 3:25:02 PM

The second clip (below) is from a similar line of sight as is the clip from CNN of the "mysterious explosion."

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/010912%20-%203rd%20clip.mpg

If you play that clip (above) and pause it near the end of the clip when the rising dust cloud appears to the left of the dark building in front of the twin towers (which I think is WTC 7), you will notice differnces in the picture from the picture of the CNN clip.

First of all, there is a lot of dust in the air (with a dust cloud about the width of the north tower visible to the left of the north tower), which is NOT seen in the CNN clip.

Secondly, the smoke is being blown to the left by the wind, not to the right as in the CNN clip.

[Edited on February 24, 2004 at 3:39 PM. Reason : ..]

2/24/2004 3:25:38 PM

Alrighty. See, now you've confused me. First you show this "clip" along with this statement...

Quote :

"One reason it is clear that both towers are still standing (from just looking at the clip)"

And now you are showing this clip, http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/010912%20-%203rd%20clip.mpg, which you now say is "of the mysterious explosion".

When in fact that clip obviously shows the one tower collapsing in the early moments of the clip. So do me a favor. Make up your damn mind about what you're arguing, then come back. K?

Quote :

"Honestly, what drugs do you take daily? Can I have some? Because if there are drugs out there that make people as unbelieveably stupid as you, then I want to spread them across the whole world. That way I can take over the world from a bunch of moronic idiots who'll believe anything I say. I can see it now, "Look, I have a still-frame edited picture from a webpage that claims Methos is your God! Obey me!" "Okay!" See? Easy."

And I just reposted that just because I want to. The fact that it is an insult directed to you is merely a pleasant bonus.

2/24/2004 3:36:53 PM

Of course I know that this clip....

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/010912%20-%203rd%20clip.mpg

...is of the south tower collapse. I was saying that the clip is from a similar line of sight as the CNN clip.

You must have misunderstood me. Read what I said above. I have tried to clarify.

[Edited on February 24, 2004 at 3:42 PM. Reason : ..]

2/24/2004 3:40:28 PM

these 2 pictures are not taken from the same angle nor anywhere near the same position. the smoke is blowing 1 direction in 1 pic and another direction in the other pic because of where the cameras are positioned. just look at the buildings and compare to each pic and you'll see that the smoke IN REALITY is blowing in 1 direction. you have to think 3 dimensionally, and rotate the 1 camera in ur mind, then it will match up and the smoke will be goin in the same direction.




also, please take your head out of the sand. the "smoke" that is rising up is from the collapse of the tower. it is in reality the dust clouds that eminated down with the falling and when it hit the ground, was launched back up into the air. there is/was no explosion before the collapse, there was no explosion during the collapse.

[Edited on February 24, 2004 at 4:43 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2004 4:42:47 PM

He's just in denial. The second video clearly shows the emergence of said "mystery explosion cloud" as a direct result of the collapsing tower and subsequent blowout of smoke and debris. And notice how he decides to totally ignore the first video that plainly shows the area where this "mystery explosion" would be had it been there prior to the first tower falling and of course no such cloud exists. He doesn't seem to understand the rotation of camera angles or utilizing different views to picture whats happening in 3d. It just amazes me that he would hold on to such an obviously untrue claim when faced with blatant proof.

There are even other conspiracy theorists who agree that the "mystery explosion" animated gif is not legit.

http://guardian.911review.org/WTC/Seven/fake-explosion.htm

[Edited on February 24, 2004 at 5:14 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2004 5:13:06 PM

^ HA HA HA HA.

Not only did that pwn the hell out of salisburyboy, but the last part also severely discredits any notions of demolition explosives.

2/24/2004 6:45:11 PM

This is from the end of the page that msb2ncsu put up above. ^^

Quote :

"It appears that the animation is a deliberate attempt to mislead, but to what purpose is not clear. The fact that one has a sequence of sepia pictures from film shot on a bright summers day, is a dead give away that something is amiss. However, the conspirators who pulled of the WTC demolition, would certainly NOT put out such a story, as it invites one to ask the question: What really did happen on September 11, 2001?"

I can't figure out what he means by this paragraph. I mean, I see that his last sentence is saying that these conspirators behind the WTC attacks wouldn't release this fake animation because it would cause people to doubt and want to investigate the "truth". But everytime I read it, it feels like he's trying to turn it around and blame these supposed conspirators anyway. And doing so while ignoring the possibility that one of his fellow "truth-seekers" created this animation to push their own theory of what happened on 9/11.

Course his lousy use of commas in the second and third sentences don't help to elevate my opinion of him. Or her.

2/24/2004 7:40:13 PM

salisburyboy - 0
rest of us - not even worth counting.

point is: GAME, SET and MATCH.

[Edited on February 24, 2004 at 9:23 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2004 9:23:24 PM

why are ya'll still argueing with this fuck?? trust me, the only "bombs" that were in these bldgs. were the fucking jets that crashed into them.

2/24/2004 9:51:54 PM

This thread is old as shit!

2/24/2004 9:54:09 PM

Quote :

"why are ya'll still argueing with this fuck?? trust me, the only "bombs" that were in these bldgs. were the fucking jets that crashed into them. --underPSI "

The leaseholder of the WTC complex, Larry Silverstein, says otherwise in the case of WTC 7. He admits in a PBS documentary that WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition.

video: http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV

Note that "pull it" is the industry term for a controlled demolition.

[Edited on February 24, 2004 at 10:02 PM. Reason : ..]

2/24/2004 10:00:24 PM

salisbury is annoying

2/24/2004 10:01:55 PM

WTC 7 most likely was brought down in a controlled demolition because of the horrendous structural damage incurred to it by the collapse of not 1, but 2 skyscrapers both weighing in at over 1 million or so tons. it wasn't brought down previous to the towers collapsing; it was brought down subsequent to them falling. btw, when you get all that weight of the towers, which can be converted to mass, and you factor in a nifty thing called gravity, and then you put them together in a formula for force, where force = mass*acceleration due to gravity, you will get 1 big goddamn freakin force that will cause craters, and that will cause damage to the surrounding area.

2/24/2004 10:12:22 PM

Quote :

"it wasn't brought down previous to the towers collapsing --brianj320"

I know that. WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11th, 2001.

Now, tell me how they placed the necessary explosive charges in the 47-story WTC 7 in just a few hours (while it had fires burning in it no less...and while it was supposedly "structurally unsafe" and "about to collapse due to fire"). It normally takes much longer than that to place explosives in a building of that size for a controlled demolition. There is no way they placed the explosives in WTC 7 on September 11th, 2001. Those explosives were placed in WTC 7 BEFORE September 11th, 2001.

Secondly, why is the government lying about what caused the collapse of WTC 7? The official FEMA report claims that fire caused WTC 7 to collapse.

[Edited on February 24, 2004 at 10:35 PM. Reason : ..]

2/24/2004 10:26:49 PM

WTC 7 was not fully intact after the collapse of the towers, as i'm sure you know and everyone else knows. because it was not fully intact, with severe structural damage already, the normal required amount of explosives would not have to be used to bring it down in a controlled fashion. the amount of explosives would be drastically cut down; also the plans of where to put the explosives to bring down the building would be changed from say if the building was still fully intact with no damage at all. usually in a case like that where the building has no damage, explosives would be put on the load bearing upright girders that support all the weight and at the right time they would all go at the same time. in WTC 7's case, most of those uprights could not be gotten to cause of the debris and fires burning so a new plan had to be developed. they cleared a lot of debris surrounding WTC 7 to get as close as they could so that explosives could be used in a proximity to bring the building down.

they dont need to put explosives on every floor of the 47 story building in order to bring it down, i hope you know that.

[Edited on February 24, 2004 at 10:47 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2004 10:37:17 PM

salisburyboy, just admit you were wrong on the "mystery explosion"

2/25/2004 9:00:09 AM

In order to side with to you, I would first have to believe your opinion was the correct position (which I don't). The evidence shows that an explosion took place at WTC 6 before either tower collapsed.

[Edited on February 25, 2004 at 12:59 PM. Reason : ..]

2/25/2004 12:57:53 PM

What evidence? Your own comonly used sources denouce your animation as a hoax, other video feeds from other angles denounce it, and YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOWN US THE SECOND TOWER.

2/25/2004 1:23:05 PM

salisbury, it is not an opinion that there was no explosion previous to the towers collasping, it is a known FACT. this fact has been proved with reliable, credible evidence by many people in this thread, as well as sources on the outside of this thread. your fellow conspiracy theorists even say that clip you provided is crap and can't be used as evidence in a discussion because it is not showing the truth in the least bit.

if anyone has an opinion here, it is YOU voicing your OPINION that WTC 6 was brought down by explosives before the collapses. everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but when your opinions are wrong, you should have the courage, decency, and respect to others to admit it.

2/25/2004 1:37:59 PM

Quote :

"What evidence? --1337 b4k4"

The following evidence provided by American Free Press, for one, including testimony from the CNN Public Affairs Department confirming the time the footage was shot, testimony from a spokesman for a company that leased office space in WTC 6 confirming that an explosion took place in WTC 6 around 9:04am, and the fact that a huge crater was located at the center of WTC 6.

Quote :

"American Free Press contacted CNN to determine exactly when the footage was filmed. CNN’s Public Affairs Department confirmed that the explosion shown in the footage occurred immediately after the second plane had crashed into the South Tower. When asked if the footage was taken at 9:04 a.m., the CNN archivist said “that’s correct.” When asked if CNN could offer any explanation about what might have caused the blast that soared higher than the 47-story WTC 7 in the foreground, the archivist said: “We can’t figure it out.” ...A spokesman for the Export-Import Bank of the United States, which had an office with four employees on the sixth floor of the Customs House, confirmed the time of the explosion and told AFP that the employees had survived and been relocated. ...The Customs House had a huge crater in its center. http://www.americanfreepress.net/07_14_02/Unexplained_9-11_/unexplained_9-11_.html"

[Edited on February 25, 2004 at 2:21 PM. Reason : ..]

2/25/2004 2:19:36 PM

Quote :

"In order to side with to you, I would first have to believe your opinion was the correct position (which I don't). The evidence shows that an explosion took place at WTC 6 before either tower collapsed."

My opinion? Its not my opinion that the "light grey cloud" is NOT from a "mystery explosion"... its fact. The video clips and analysis from one of your own conspiracy cohorts plainly show that the smoke cloud in question was NOT from an explosion but the fallout from the collapse of the South Tower. For some reason you can't seem to at least acknowledge this one simple fallacy in your claims (not that there aren't more ).

Do you really still believe that the 8 frame gif shows an explosion prior to the South Tower falling or do you agree with the rest of the sane (or at least realistic) world that the South tower had already collapse at that point and the cloud was a result of that collapse (not a bomb)?

Just answer this extremely simple question. I'm not asking you to give up any beliefs (probably more like "hopes" in your case) that any other "conspiracy activity" took place, just concede you were wrong on this point in particular. Its baby steps... consider it therapy.

2/25/2004 2:29:18 PM

salisbury loves the cock

2/25/2004 2:31:14 PM

More photographs of the damage to WTC 6:



[Edited on February 25, 2004 at 2:37 PM. Reason : ..]

2/25/2004 2:35:37 PM

Quote :

"Do you really still believe that the 8 frame gif shows an explosion prior to the South Tower falling or do you agree with the rest of the sane (or at least realistic) world that the South tower had already collapse at that point and the cloud was a result of that collapse (not a bomb)?"

CNN's Public Affairs Department confirmed that that footage was shot at 9:04am. I believe that it shows an explosion prior to the collapse of the south tower. I will believe that unless evidence shows otherwise.

2/25/2004 2:40:19 PM

Quote :

"A massive explosion, witnessed by millions of television viewers on CNN, evidently devastated World Trade Center 6, the eight-story U.S. Customs building, although no national newspaper, other than American Free Press, has written a word about it."

how convenient! no other source except this "american free press" site, most likely written by and for conspiracy theorists, including salisbury's beloved Alex Jones, knows anything about this explosion. but wait, this ONE source MUST be right.

gimme a break, no one wrote a word about it or mentioned it on major news channels around the world because it didn't happen.

^ you are most likely correct in sayin that footage was shot at 9:04 AM. however, the footage that was spliced together for that neat little animation was shot as the tower was collapsing. so i'm sure CNN is standing behind the footage, but they are NOT saying that that footage in the spliced vid-clip happened at 9:04 AM, before the towers collapsing.

i like how you find loop-holes in people's words and text provided online and exploit them. but i guess that is basically what all theorists do, right? if you can find a loop-hole, must be a conspiracy..lol

[Edited on February 25, 2004 at 2:48 PM. Reason : .]

2/25/2004 2:40:21 PM

Quote :

"CNN's Public Affairs Department confirmed that that footage was shot at 9:04am. I believe that it shows an explosion prior to the collapse of the south tower. I will believe that unless evidence shows otherwise. "

Are you blind? Did you not see the two videos I posted that there was no existance of such a loud prior to the fall of the tower and show the emergence of the cloud after the tower has fallen. No where else has this "testimony" from a CNN archivist been seen besides the bullshit article on American Free Press. Its bullshit. It wasn't a bomb explosion anyways... the same guy you are citing as your source thinks it was now a laser beam... perhaps mounted on a shark's head?

http://www.american-buddha.com/laser.beam.htm#LASER%20BEAM%20WEAPONS%20AND%20THE%20COLLAPSE%20OF%20THE%20WORLD%20TRADE%20CENTER

2/25/2004 2:50:31 PM

In case you missed the ad on AFP (thrown inbetween all their attempts at getting you to buy soemthing or pay for a subscription), I didn't want you to miss this.

Quote :

"David Duke Welcome Home Rally A welcome home rally for David Duke is planned in New Orleans the first weekend after his release from federal prison, on May 29-30. The event will be sponsored by The Barnes Review, the unique magazine bringing history into accordance with the facts and dedicated to Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes, the American historian foremost in the field of revisionist (authentic) history. You may reserve tickets for the event by e-mailing roygodenau@hotmail.com . "

2/25/2004 3:07:45 PM

Quote :

"the same guy you are citing as your source thinks it was now a laser beam --msb2ncsu"

No. American Free Press interviewed a German physicist who thinks a laser weapon MAY have been used.

I have no opinion on this subject and am not trying to say a laser weapon was used or not...however, laser weapons do exist. The "THEL" weapon (developed by Israel and the U.S.) is a very powerful laser weapon discussed in the article you linked.

More on THEL:
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/systems/THEL.html
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/152/documentid/961/history/3,2360,646,152,961

[Edited on February 25, 2004 at 3:12 PM. Reason : ..]

2/25/2004 3:09:46 PM

Quote :

"In case you missed the ad on AFP (thrown inbetween all their attempts at getting you to buy soemthing or pay for a subscription), I didn't want you to miss this. --msb2ncsu"

And, as I am sure you know, a paper does not necessarily agree with every person or group that advertises with their paper. Quite the opposite. Any reasonable person realizes that. Pretty simple concept, really.

[Edited on February 25, 2004 at 3:15 PM. Reason : ..]

2/25/2004 3:14:28 PM

Good webpage on the controlled demolition of WTC 7. It includes a clip that shows that "pull it" is the industry term for triggering a controlled demolition.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/

video: http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/pull-it2_lo.wmv

2/25/2004 3:28:49 PM

Quote :

"The "THEL" weapon (developed by Israel and the U.S.) is a very powerful laser weapon discussed in the article you linked."

Its powerful yes, but not to the degree thats being alluded to. I know all about the THEL, follow its development relatively closely because I think it has great defense potential. It is FAR from being capable of taking down a building or "vaporizing" targets.

Quote :

"And, as I am sure you know, a paper does not necessarily agree with every person or group that advertises with their paper. Quite the opposite. Any reasonable person realizes that. Pretty simple concept, really."

Whens the last time you saw an ad for a Klan rally or Muslim extremist get-together on the main page of the News and Observer's website? Or any legit news source for that matter?

2/25/2004 3:30:12 PM

Quote :

"Good webpage on the controlled demolition of WTC 7. It includes a clip that shows that "pull it" is the industry term for triggering a controlled demolition. http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/ video: http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/pull-it2_lo.wmv"

Absolutely NONE of that pertains to what I am asking you about. Address the animated gif and the conclusive proof in video, pictue and "conspiracy theorist" analysis that the gif does NOT show and explosion but the fallout of the south tower collapse.

Quit fucking avoiding the issue.

2/25/2004 3:33:58 PM

Quote :

"Absolutely NONE of that pertains to what I am asking you about. Address the animated gif and the conclusive proof in video, pictue and "conspiracy theorist" analysis that the gif does NOT show and explosion but the fallout of the south tower collapse. Quit fucking avoiding the issue. --msb2ncsu "

First of all, I haven't avoided the issue. I responded to you (even though I am under no obligation to respond to you). The issue of what happened on 9/11 and who is responsible entails much more than the explosion that took place at WTC 6. This thread is about 9/11 in general and I am under no obligation to stick to the issues you want to discuss (after I have responded to you no less).

[Edited on February 25, 2004 at 3:44 PM. Reason : ..]

2/25/2004 3:44:34 PM

Yes or No... Does the animated gif show a cloud from a mystery explosion prior to the south tower collapse?

If you say yes... please explain the two videos and photos plus analysis from the other "conspiracy theorist" that provide conclusive proof that there was no such cloud in existance prior to the fall of the south tower.

2/25/2004 4:02:34 PM

http://thewebfairy.com/911/7/Bld7.mov

Am I correct in saying that this shows video footage of WTC 7? Footage that shows a couple of floors on fire through the window on one side and the other side (that faced the north and south tower) completely destroyed, pouring out smoke from every single floor, and structural damage.

Why do you not think that sustained damage and persistent fires throughout the building (that increase the magnitude of the damage because of structural weakness the intense heat causes) could have cause the building to collapse. Why is that such a stretch for you? You (or your sources) keep talking about how much the building collapses resemble controlled demolitions but what else do you have to compare it to? How may other buildings have ever had anything remotely close to this scale of damage happen to them that wasn't a controlled demolition?

Please respond to previous posts before moving to this one, kkthx.

2/25/2004 4:10:08 PM

Quote :

"First of all, I haven't avoided the issue. I responded to you (even though I am under no obligation to respond to you). The issue of what happened on 9/11 and who is responsible entails much more than the explosion that took place at WTC 6. This thread is about 9/11 in general and I am under no obligation to stick to the issues you want to discuss (after I have responded to you no less)."

yes that is true, but if someone asks you a logical question, or brings up a good point you should have enough respect for them and answer their questions or points. if you fail to do so, you make yourself look like an even bigger joke than what you already are. many people in this thread, including myself, have made very logical, precise, clear points about the issues you bring up and on most occasions you have chosen to ignore them by either posting something totally irrelevant to what is currently being discussed, or riciculous quotes from no-name individuals that people dont care about. when you do this, you make yourself out to be a disrespectful asshole. if you want people to take you seriously you have to start taking them seriously. and remember, it was YOU who started this thread in the first place.

2/25/2004 4:17:25 PM

If an explosion had caused that, those two outer walls would not be standing. Notice how the inside isn't hollowed out either. An explosion requires forces pushing out, so unless you want to tell me that they used specialy designed explosives that only direct their energy straight up and down and not to either side there is no way an explosion could have caused that.

Quote :

" I will believe that unless evidence shows otherwise."

The evidence does show otherwise, but you've got your head in the sand.

So tell me salisburyboy:

[b]WHAT COULD POSSIBLY HAVE CREATED A 47 STORY TALL EXPLOSION THAT NO OTHER MEDIA OUTLET FILMED, SHOT OR HAS A RECORD OF, THAT NO ONE WHO WAS THERE REMEMBERS AND THAT NO ONE WHO SPENT DAYS WATCHING THE VIDEO FEEDS (I lived in NY, I spent a lot mroe time than you probably ever did looking at this stuff) REMEMBERS AT ALL?

AND

WHERE IS THE TIME STAMP ON YOUR FOOTAGE THAT IS PRESENT IN ALL CNN BROADCASTS?

Quote :

"Good webpage on the controlled demolition of WTC 7. It includes a clip that shows that "pull it" is the industry term for triggering a controlled demolition. http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/ video: http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/pull-it2_lo.wmv"

from page 5 of this thread:

Quote :

"Likewise, weren't a couple of the buildings specificaly demolished because they had structural damage and it was safer to bring them down than to let them stand."

I very clearly remember, as does a friend of mine who lives in NYC recalls them talking about having to take down one of the WTC buildings because it took heavy structural damage and was too unstable. There is no mystery.

2/25/2004 4:21:08 PM

Quote :

"from page 5 of this thread: Quote : "Likewise, weren't a couple of the buildings specificaly demolished because they had structural damage and it was safer to bring them down than to let them stand." I very clearly remember, as does a friend of mine who lives in NYC recalls them talking about having to take down one of the WTC buildings because it took heavy structural damage and was too unstable. There is no mystery. "

yes you are correct 1337. that is exactly the case in WTC 7; it was deemed unsafe and to ensure the safety of the workers and emergency personnel it was brought down in a controlled demolition. and i know all this cause its called living 20 miles from NYC my wholelife and watching, reading and listening.

2/25/2004 4:28:58 PM

Dammit, you guys just gave him enough post padding so that he can avoid my posts. He always does when a handful of posts get put up after mine. Does he not like me?

Just in case...

Quote :

"Yes or No... Does the animated gif show a cloud from a mystery explosion prior to the south tower collapse? If you say yes... please explain the two videos and photos plus analysis from the other "conspiracy theorist" that provide conclusive proof that there was no such cloud in existance prior to the fall of the south tower."

[Edited on February 25, 2004 at 4:35 PM. Reason : .]

2/25/2004 4:34:13 PM

Just to add to this, my friend in NYC confirms that it was WTC 7 that was brought down due to structural damage

2/25/2004 5:08:05 PM

Quote :

"yes that is true, but if someone asks you a logical question, or brings up a good point you should have enough respect for them and answer their questions or points. if you fail to do so, you make yourself look like an even bigger joke than what you already are. many people in this thread, including myself, have made very logical, precise, clear points about the issues you bring up and on most occasions you have chosen to ignore them by either posting something totally irrelevant to what is currently being discussed, or riciculous quotes from no-name individuals that people dont care about. when you do this, you make yourself out to be a disrespectful asshole. if you want people to take you seriously you have to start taking them seriously. and remember, it was YOU who started this thread in the first place."

Completely true. You can liken it to the term they use in law, "burden of proof." Salisbury has made a serious set of claims that go against what is generally believed, and it is totally his responsibility to argue them sufficiently to make us change our minds. Such a thing requires concrete, believable evidence and the ability to refute contradictions and arguments against the claims. It's my belief that salisbury hasn't done any of that. I can't agree more with what you said.

And because I think msb2ncsu deserves an answer, I'll repost his question.

Quote :

"Yes or No... Does the animated gif show a cloud from a mystery explosion prior to the south tower collapse? If you say yes... please explain the two videos and photos plus analysis from the other "conspiracy theorist" that provide conclusive proof that there was no such cloud in existance prior to the fall of the south tower."

I think everyone who posts needs to quote that until salisbury answers it.

[Edited on February 25, 2004 at 6:58 PM. Reason : sorry msb, messed up your user name.]

2/25/2004 6:58:24 PM

If he ever fesses up I think I win The Wolf Web.

2/25/2004 7:11:10 PM

First you asked this question:

Quote :

"Do you really still believe that the 8 frame gif shows an explosion prior to the South Tower falling or do you agree with the rest of the sane (or at least realistic) world that the South tower had already collapse at that point and the cloud was a result of that collapse (not a bomb)? --msb2ncsu "

And I gave you this answer:

Quote :

"CNN's Public Affairs Department confirmed that that footage was shot at 9:04am. I believe that it shows an explosion prior to the collapse of the south tower. I will believe that unless evidence shows otherwise. "

Now you ask the same question in this manner (as if I didn't answer it before):

Quote :

"Yes or No... Does the animated gif show a cloud from a mystery explosion prior to the south tower collapse? If you say yes... please explain the two videos and photos plus analysis from the other "conspiracy theorist" that provide conclusive proof that there was no such cloud in existance prior to the fall of the south tower. --msb2ncsu"

I refer to my previous answer to the first part....with regard to the second part, I also previously addressed the 2nd video of the 2 you posted (maybe you missed that too).

[Edited on February 25, 2004 at 9:57 PM. Reason : ..]

2/25/2004 9:57:28 PM