911?

[10x]

Ahh a story that goes agaist the official story. Any coments?

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm

[Heartland]

David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries. They've said from nearly the beginning that fireballs went down elevator shafts after the plane hit. The burned man said it was fire from an elevator shaft that burned him.

The first "explosion" they heard and felt could have been the plane hitting, and the second, which they admit was "just a few seconds later" was probably the jet fuel exploding.

Also, the buildings imploded -- from the top down. We watched it. I believe that if there were basement bombs that could have taken down those towers, the towers would have fallen over, not imploded. And we know that there were hundreds of emergency workers in the lobbies before the buildings fell, many of whom escaped death, and they've said nothing about fire or smoke from below.

However, if you Google William Rodriguez, you'll get a lot of links. This story is apparently well-known to a lot of people. It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit winds up.

[10x]

"Also, the buildings imploded -- from the top down."

It fell from the top down wich is an example of a controled detination prior to it colapsing.

When I saw it I woundered why and who blew the building.

It took awile but tI remembered the first bobm attempt and that the entire structure had been alooked at. The information from that said if buildings colapsed sidways a death toll would have been aprox 10 to 20 thousand.

From this information it would have been easy to set charges to be sure if a bomb atempt ever happened it could be a forced drop to save a lot of folks verses the likly fall over.

I doubt we will ever know who had the athority to order such an act. But I do belive it was done to protect the many over the few.

[Powerhouse]

My comment: Rag trash.

[Eriu]

Can't believe I'm saying this LOL

But I agree with PH!


:smiley_10

[10x]

Lol 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

[Cartman]

Wait!

You all don't believe that Bush blew up the Towers - for political gain?


I'm shocked!


..

[agentorange]

It fell from the top down wich is an example of a controled detination prior to it colapsing.
No, Roy, the twin towers colapsed from the top down just as they were designed to do. Don't forget, these giant skyscrapers were nestled in the heart of a metropolis--had they been designed to "fall over sideways" they would have destroyed MUCH of the nearby infrastructure and numerous other heavy-populated buildings, costing New York thousands more lives. Scyscrapers in NYC have been designed to fall DOWN, not OVER, for many years to prevent unecessary collateral damage.

There were design flaws, obviously, as in each floor of the twin towers was given the same level of architectural support as the lower floors, meaning, that when the top floor collapses onto the preceding floor, it gains double the weight and momentum and snowballs from there. Of course, the designers of the building never gave consideration to a plane crashing into the top floors. When they rebuild it, they will. Generally, when you design a building you put priority on making it structually sound given the geographic location and any possible NATURAL HAZARDS. (IE, in Los Angeles, they build the foundation on springs to withstand earthquakes) In New York City, the threat of earthquakes and hurricanes and tornados is minimal--the number one threat to a building would be structural malfunction and the building toppling over SIDEWAYS. Given that, the twin towers collapsed exactly as it was designed to do, and thankfully, it did crumble nearly verticle to the floor, saving countless lives.

[10x]

You all don't believe that Bush blew up the Towers - for political gain?
ROTFLMAO. Nope he is to much a fool to think of such.