the firefighters were the one's in the building,seems reasonable to listen to what they have to say.
''ladder 15,we've got two isolated pockets of fire.we should be able to knock it down with two lines. radio that, 78th floor we've got two isolated pockets of fire.''
No what he means is exactily what you said, so how did 2 pockets of fire that needed only 2 hoses to extinguish bring down an entire building.
it was reported live on BBC by Jane Standley that building 7 had collapsed prior [20mins] before thebuilding had actually fallen to the ground.
if you doubt that to be true you can see the building still standing in the background as she is reporting 'live' it has already collapsed!
now, if that's not concrete evidence then wtf is concrete evidence.
For me the BBC early reporting is totally damning..
CNN's Aaron Brown also reported building 7 had collapsed around one hour prior to building actually collapsing!!!
so if it was just a 'mistake' by the BBC reporting it had collapsed prior,you think it was just a coincidence that it then collapsed 20 mins later?
PM33
Judging from the responses to your 9/11 conspiracy tales....
no matter how hard you bang your head on this, no one believes you!
The more you rave on about it the more crazy you appear.
If this conspiracy stuff is true, do something about it! Assemble a decent, non-vague, clear and understandable (with eye-witnesses) case and present it. No innuendo, no youtube links. Calm, non abusive logical arguments with backing UNDISPUTABLE PROOF.
Stop sitting here on seabreeze crying about building 7.
Have you got the idea yet?
Most seabreezers don't care!!
They are here to have fun friendly talk about the wind ( it is seabreeze) the vessels they choose to harness said wind, and the fun they have doing it!!!
I don't deny anyones' right to question mainstream media's stories. What I do find amusing (as you can see by my recent stirring of the pot) is the places you choose to air your views and the audience you choose.
Maybe a different audience is what you seek!
analogy,
20 mins before first tower collapse it is reported live on BBC by reporter that one of the twin towers has collapsed,the reporter moves to the side and both towers are still standing. 20 mins later one of the towers collapses. and then 9/11 commission fails to look into this.
the BBC has 'lost' the footage of it reporting wtc7 has collapsed 20mins before it actually did,so no i can't show you the actual BBC tape.
Lee hamilton the vice-chairman for 911 commission, i did hear on c-span say we had so much to cover in 911 commission that wtc7 was not our main focus. wtc7 was not even mentioned in report.
and yes all youtube footage of BBC reporting wtc7 collapse [prior to collapsing] is possibly edited sh1t.
Peter - I'm not sure how old you are but you have conversation like someone who is either under 8 or over 70.
The traditional habit in conversation or debate is to listen to the content that precedes what you say and to respond to it. You were asked if you'd listened to the commission report.
On a separate note, what about events that aren't conspiracies eg the 2004 tsunami. It would be interesting to dissect the errors made in reporting those events with the same passion and to see what level of inconsistencies are there. I'm sure no doubt you would conclude that the tsunami was also caused by the illuminati.
Unfortuneately peter, no matter how concrete and credible the evidence you quote on the 911 conspiracy and NWO matters, there are some who will never be able to open their minds to it and can only respond with ridicule which is the lowest form of wit.
Sadly for them they have used their egos instead of their intellects to define their belief structures. To accept an idea contrary to those belief structures is akin to suicide of the ego.
If you can find a connection between over developed breasts on women and the NWO, you might get their real interest and their undoubted support FOR the NWO.
No need to be condescending Cisco.
How about you apply Occam's razor to the current debate re: building 7. That is, maybe the most simple explanation is the one to go for.
The most simple is that the media had hundreds of reports coming in rapidly and they made a mistake and reported the wrong building.
The most complex, and certainly harder to believe, is that a group of exceptionally bright conspiracists blew up a few buildings without yet being caught, yet they did their media release 20mins too early.
Seriously would they have had a media release ready to go saying - "building 7 has collapsed" and let it out too early?
