Poll: Were you aware of Building 7, in regards to 911, and its demise?

[Evanescence]

Were you aware of Building 7, at ground zero, and that it collapsed at 5:30 PM, on Sept 11?

I am curious to know how much of the general public knew or remembered Building 7, and its demise on 911.

Thanks, E

PS...I did, I watched the news all day and into the evening...

[clemsontigers23]

Were you aware of Building 7, at ground zero, and that it collapsed at 5:30 PM, on Sept 11?

I am curious to know how much of the general public knew or remembered Building 7, and its demise on 911.

Thanks, E

PS...I did, I watched the news all day and into the evening...

E...I thought you were done with this.

[middletree]

I heard later that it went down, but didn't get to watch any new that whole week. i know that's weird, as most people were glued to TV, but I had a valid excuse.

[Jason]

I heard later that it went down, but didn't get to watch any new that whole week. i know that's weird, as most people were glued to TV, but I had a valid excuse.

C'mon, James, becoming a new father (of twins no less) is not a valid excuse. *looks for tongue-in-cheek smiley*

[middletree]

C'mon, James, becoming a new father (of twins no less) is not a valid excuse. *looks for tongue-in-cheek smiley*

You know what's funny? My other kid was born the day i was to go see "The Passion". It ended up being over a year before I got around to it. So arguably the two most gut-wrenching things that Americans could see on the big and the small screen--9/11 and that movie--were missed by me because of new babies.

[Jason]

You know what's funny? My other kid was born the day i was to go see "The Passion". It ended up being over a year before I got around to it. So arguably the two most gut-wrenching things that Americans could see on the big and the small screen--9/11 and that movie--were missed by me because of new babies.

Your wife has interesting timing.

[Gapeach3DFan]

Jaci and I actually saw Building 7 when we were in New York last year. It has been rebuilt. We didn't go in the building. We saw it from the other side of Ground Zero. It is privately-owned. So, it wasn't caught in all of the red tape that has delayed the construction on the Twin Towers.

[Ed_CornwallUK]

Were you aware of Building 7, at ground zero, and that it collapsed at 5:30 PM, on Sept 11?

I am curious to know how much of the general public knew or remembered Building 7, and its demise on 911.

Thanks, E

PS...I did, I watched the news all day and into the evening...

I did....but wasnt aware it was that late in the day....was that the building that was meant to contain lots of records eg: fiancial etc...?

[HotWireD]

I did....but wasnt aware it was that late in the day....was that the building that was meant to contain lots of records eg: fiancial etc...?

Some people say that the investigation records for ENRON were in there - shame if they were -that would mean that justice may not be done for the hundreds of thousands of US citizens who lost all their savings and pensions.

[middletree]

Some people say that the investigation records for ENRON were in there - shame if they were -that would mean that justice may not be done for the hundreds of thousands of US citizens who lost all their savings and pensions.
Actually, Enron executives did get convicted and sent to prison.

[Evanescence]

FYI, Building 7 was used as a command post during 9/11 with Guilianni and company set up in there.

[clemsontigers23]

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

http://media.popularmechanics.co m/images/0305911-wtc7-sm.jpg
FIRE STORM: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. PHOTOGRAPH BY NEW YORK OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Big Plane, Small Holes
CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

http://media.popularmechanics.co m/images/0305911-pentagon-SM.jpg
HOLE TRUTH: Flight 77's landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon's Ring C. PHOTOGRAPH BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Intact Windows
CLAIM: Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece--even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.

FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do--they're blast-resistant.

"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."

Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

http://media.popularmechanics.co m/images/0305911-flight77-sm.jpg
AFTERMATH: Wreckage from Flight 77 on the Pentagon's lawn--proof that a passenger plane, not a missile, hit the building. PHOTOGRAPH BY AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS

Where's The Pod?
CLAIM: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."

FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."

Flight 175's Windows
CLAIM: On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach. 911inplanesite.com states that "Bernback" saw the plane "crash into the South Tower." "It definitely did not look like a commercial plane," Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any windows on the sides."

Coupled with photographs and videos of Flight 175 that lack the resolution to show windows, Birnbach's statement has fueled one of the most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories--specifically, that the South Tower was struck by a military cargo plane or a fuel tanker.

FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.

While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into the collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied--including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine--as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.

http://media.popularmechanics.co m/images/0305911-windows-sm.jpg
PLAIN VIEW: Passenger windows on a piece of Flight 175's fuselage. PHOTOGRPAH BY WILLIAM F. BAKER/FEMA

[clemsontigers23]

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

Any more questions?

[HotWireD]

Actually, Enron executives did get convicted and sent to prison.

Thanks for that middletree, I had not heard that. Glad to know that justice was seen to be done (some of the sites I have visited implied that the Enron exec's got away with it because the evidence was lost, nice to know this is not the case).

[Evanescence]

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.


More on this:

First, here we go again with a government agency, NIST making explainations...PLEASE !!!

Question: Why didn't the sprinkers work in building 7?

Question: Why does the CNN footage show the building intact with almost NO damage or fires burning just prior to the collapse?

Question: Why was the collapse, so perfect and clean? if indeed it had structural damage, which caused it to fall, why didn't it topple, lean or crumble? It fell like a rock. Same with WTC 1 & II. The both came down in less than 10 seconds....clean and straight down.

Question: Doesn't anyone find it suspicious that THREE buildings collapsed in exactly the same way, all on the same day? One that wasn't even hit? One of the towers collapsed in just 25 minutes. Fires burned in several high rises throughout the world for HOURS, far more intense than these and never collapsed. But here, three in a matter of hours...with only small fires?

Question: Why didn't the 911 commission talk about or discuss Building 7 in the report? No mention of it is made.

Question: In the 911 report, the diagram of the WTCs were intentionally altered, not showing the middle core framework which is made of an enormous amount of steel...steel beams in the 24x24 Inch, solid range? These beams...this framework shows that the pancake theory is a joke as the middle section would have supported each floor, even if the outer section failed. if the entire framework did indeed fail, it would NOT have come down so clean.

The Towers came down in about 8-9 seconds each....basically the speed of gravity. This proves the pancake theory is a farce. If it fell as they say, each floor would have slowed the downward process and perhaps even caused it to topple over. It dropped too fast and too clean. And in too short a period of time. There's no way folks.

Question: On the Towers, why were the steel frame pieces small and almost conveniently short? Its clear that the pieces were in very small....20-30 foot chunks, broken up. How could this be on ALL three buildings? There were a few small pieces of standing framework, but about 95% or so is in small, perfect peices. How could this be? On three ocaasions in one day? PLEASE!

Way too many coincidences folks....ask yourselves how many can be debunked. If one is true, then there is a case. I believe there are many.

[middletree]

Thanks for that middletree, I had not heard that. Glad to know that justice was seen to be done (some of the sites I have visited implied that the Enron exec's got away with it because the evidence was lost, nice to know this is not the case).
The only one who got it easy was Ken Lay. He was convicted, and sentenced to (I forget how many years). He was free on bail, set to surrender in a few weeks, but died before having to report to prison.

[Evanescence]

Lastly:

AFTERMATH: Wreckage from Flight 77 on the Pentagon's lawn--proof that a passenger plane, not a missile, hit the building. PHOTOGRAPH BY AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS


This a joke. Thats it? I am referring to the pic in the above post witht he caption I quoted. This looks like a piece of tin foil. Where's the rest?

Question: How can the most important building in the world not have video of the attacks? Dozens of camera abroad and no video? Please.

Quesion: How could two rag-head, dork, wanna-be pilots, do a 270 degree turn and perfectly place an airliner into a building, without touching the ground, clipping light poles or missing altogether? Expert pilots agree this would be virtually impossible for anyone...much less two inexperiend wanna be's.

Question: If a 60 ton airliner crashed into the Pentagon at 400+ MPH, there'd be wreckage EVERYWHERE. Where is it? Also, how could there be windows intact around the impact area? Coincindence?

Question: Doesn't anyone find it suspicious that within a few days of the attacks, all 19 hijiackers were ID'd? That was an immediate rad flag for me, even back then.

Question: Doesn't it bother anyone that our VP, Dick Cheney was conducting war games at NORAD (our military and aviation track center)...war games involving hijacked airliners, crashing into buildings?

More and more coincidences....or maybe something more?

[clemsontigers23]

E, I'm sure you saw where the man was talking about carrying people's body parts off of the lawn.

Seriously, this is getting old, fast. Who cares if it was a government agency...the government is not as evil as you want to believe.

[Evanescence]

E, I'm sure you saw where the man was talking about carrying people's body parts off of the lawn.

Seriously, this is getting old, fast. Who cares if it was a government agency...the government is not as evil as you want to believe.

You're the one who keeps stirring it up..

I posted a serious question....with NOTHING about conspiracy theories. You hijacked it to debunk. I hope you had fun.

[Evanescence]

E, I'm sure you saw where the man was talking about carrying people's body parts off of the lawn.

Seriously, this is getting old, fast. Who cares if it was a government agency...the government is not as evil as you want to believe.

BTW- So we just throw away all common sense, expert analysis and the hundreds of eyewitness testimonies because one guy made a statement? Please.

[Mr.Elwood]

Have any off you ever watched “9|11” by Jules and Gedeon Naude and James Hanlon? The two French armature filmmakers, and a firefighter, that were the very first people to respond to the alarms because they are the engine company responsible for the WTC buildings. How does their live video and commentary of the events as they are happening fall into line with the conspiracy for or against a conspiracy?

I wondering how it plays out in the minds of those is this debate..

[Evanescence]

Have any off you ever watched “9|11” by Jules and Gedeon Naude and James Hanlon? The two French armature filmmakers, and a firefighter, that were the very first people to respond to the alarms because they are the engine company responsible for the WTC buildings. How does their live video and commentary of the events as they are happening fall into line with the conspiracy for or against a conspiracy?

I wondering how it plays out in the minds of those is this debate..

Please do tell...

Just the facts about the documentary, we have to be careful not to put things in peoples minds...

[blacksheep]

hasn't this been argued enough for this group? No one here is going to be changing their minds.

[Evanescence]

hasn't this been argued enough for this group? No one here is going to be changing their minds.

No one is arguing.

Changed minds? Someday they might...:D

[Mr.Elwood]

Please do tell...

Just the facts about the documentary, we have to be careful not to put things in peoples minds...

It’s a documentary started about a rookie going through his first year on an Engine squad. Probably has the best live on scene shots of the event since they are the first crew responding to WTC alarms.

If anyone acts and talks like and expert on either side of this debate and hasn’t seen this DVD you lost huge credibility with me. If I easily found it; bought it; thoroughly enjoyed (although tragic and sickening at times) it, just how much effort has any of you thrown into knowing all you can about 9-11 as you say you do? It might prove or disprove lots of stuff, but I find it hard to believe that the people in this debate don’t know about it. It is the live coverage from the firefighters in the WTC all day. It’s the live coverage of one brother trying to find his brother in WTC as the second plane hits. It is the live converge of the firefighters in one building while the other collapses…etc.

You have to see the DVD to fully appreciate just what went on that day. Mix it in with the National Geographic “Inside 9/11” with the rest of what y’all have and I think you’ll have a fuller picture.

Whether or not it convinces you one way or the other is not up to me, but the “9|11” by Jules and Gedeon Naude and James Hanlon DVD is a must have for anyone claiming to be an expert on either side.

[Evanescence]

It’s a documentary started about a rookie going through his first year on an Engine squad. Probably has the best live on scene shots of the event since they are the first crew responding to WTC alarms.

If anyone acts and talks like and expert on either side of this debate and hasn’t seen this DVD you lost huge credibility with me. If I easily found it; bought it; thoroughly enjoyed (although tragic and sickening at times) it, just how much effort has any of you thrown into knowing all you can about 9-11 as you say you do? I might prove or disprove lots of stuff, but I find it hard to believe that the people in this debate don’t know about it. It is the live coverage from the firefighters in the WTC all day. It’s the live coverage of one brother trying to find his brother in WTC as the second plane hits. It is the live converge of the firefighters in one building while the other collapses…etc.

You have to see the DVD to fully appreciate just what went on that day. Mix it in with the National Geographic “Inside 9/11” with the rest of what y’all have and I think you’ll have a fuller picture.

Whether or not it convinces you one way or the other is not up to me, but the “9|11” by Jules and Gedeon Naude and James Hanlon DVD is a must have for anyone claiming to be an expert on either side.

Mr. El, thanks so much.....I'll check it out......

[RevZeek]

The Naude DVD was probably one of the most moving documentaries I've ever seen. You can probably get a copy at your local library.