|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject: Questions about Building Seven of the WTC? |
 |
|
Conspiracy theorist say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by Airliners and only had a few fires. It also had a confession from the building owner who said he "Pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence conspiracy theorist are wrong.
As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above the them.
So we know the building should have been hit given the debris field above. But what of the damage to the building? Conspiracy sites say there were small fires. And what of Silverstein's comments in the PBS special? He used the term "Pull" to describe a decision made. Conspiracy theorist say "Pull" is a term used by demolition experts. This is one of those many half truths conspiracy theorist use to convince the ignorant. "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition. However, was the fire more severe than conspiracy theorist let on and was Silverstein's quote taken out of context? The two are related and are explored below.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here are the 3-d graphs I posted previously:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sure, here's a question for you ya big bad Bully-Joo:
What exactly was housed in WTC7? Childrens' daycare? Perhaps shopping? Fitness clubs?
In other words: WHO had their offices there?
Hmmmmmmmmm ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
??
you don't like this thread do you?
Well you better get used to that site. It is not like you are not going to see it again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| ?? |
You're stumped!?!
Wow, that's gotta be a first.
Anyways, you really should look into it. Work on "getting to the bottom of things" as it were.
It's really quite "interesting" WHO had their offices there, & why it would make all that much more sense
for "I AM NOT A CROOK" Silverstein to order the building "pulled". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm
| Quote: |
So we know the building should have been hit given the debris field above. But what of the damage to the building? Conspiracy sites say there were small fires. And what of Silverstein's comments in the PBS special? He used the term "Pull" to describe a decision made. Conspiracy theorist say "Pull" is a term used by demolition experts. This is one of those many half truths conspiracy theorist use to convince the ignorant. "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition. However, was the fire more severe than conspiracy theorist let on and was Silverstein's quote taken out of context? The two are related and are explored below.
Silverstein's Quote:
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business
Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
He could be lying right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Ryan_William.txt
"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn�t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we�re heading east on Vesey, we couldn�t see much past Broadway. We couldn�t see Church Street. We couldn�t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."
"A little north of Vesey I said, we�ll go down, let�s see what�s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what�s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn�t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn�t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we�re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn�t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn�t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I�m standing next to said, that building doesn�t look straight. So I�m standing there. I�m looking at the building. It didn�t look right, but, well, we�ll go in, we�ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody�s going into 7, there�s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we�ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
This proves there was a big hole on the south side. It's in the middle of the building and goes up about 20 stories...
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that�s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn�t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7� did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn�t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn�t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn�t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o�clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that�s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that�s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn�t seem so bad. But that�s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn�t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody� My feeling early on was we weren�t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn�t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn�t go further north on West Street. And I couldn�t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
It mirrors what Silverstein said.
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.
http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html
And now for the best video evidence to date from our friends at 911myths...
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
That alone should end this debate. The fire dept didn't have orders from on high. So that leaves the fire dept lying to cover up a demolition for Bush or the firefighters made a good call.
More from another blogger�
RealityCheck
�(1) In your own quote we have a Fire Dept. COMMANDER saying: "....they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire......". How and why is everyone ignoring the fact that the COMMANDER, obviously based on his relevant/authoritative experience/knowledge, judges that the WTC7 fire is OUT OF CONTROL!
I ask any reasonable person to tell me WHAT POSSIBLE OPINION from ANY 'civilian' could have been persuasive enough to CHANGE THE COMMANDER'S MIND enough to continue with a 'lost cause'? [....the persistence with which 'lost cause' could only INEVITABLY have resulted in greater loss of life than if they "pulled back" NOW and leave it to burn out while concentrate on preventing its spread further afield, heh? ].
So, whatever Silverstein might have WANTED, in light of what the COMMANDER said, it is OBVIOUS to any reasonable person that Silverstein could have had little OTHER choice than to recognize and acquiesce/concur with the FIRE COMMANDER'S professional judgment Wouldn't you agree?
(2) As to the term "pull":
Given that the fire department is organized/regimented along semi-milaristic lines (evidence terms such as Battalion and Commander), would it seem unreasonable to find that OTHER traditional 'military' terms are used?......like withdraw[ or move out or PULL (back) etc. .......in such a structure/culture as in a FIRE DEPT. COMMAND STRUCTURE maneuvering/ordering about MANY 'troops' (firemen)? I for one would find it extraordinary if such an organization did NOT use such traditional and well understood/useful (and to the point) terms to ISSUE ORDERS WHICH COULD NOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD EVEN IN THE HEAT OF 'BATTLE' (remember the term "Battalion" which is part of their organizational/operational structure?).
RC.
As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, lets review the evidence...
What we do have for sure.
1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".
2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn�t look straight." He then says "It didn�t look right".
3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."
4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".
5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.
6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.
7) The collapse happened from the bottom.
 Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.
9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse"
12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
What we don't have...
1) Clear view of the large hole
2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact
3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side
4) Any sign of an actual explosive.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?
They are interviewing this woman with Building 7 in the background because they knew well in advance the building was going to collapse. The reporter says �This is it� as if they are waiting for the collapse. Then the other reporter says �What we�ve been fearing all afternoon has finally happened.� Why did they fear a controlled demolition? If it was a secret demolition for money why did the media know about it ahead of time?
There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the fireman out. |
| Quote: |
Why did Building 7 in the World Trade Centre collapse? Did Larry Silverstein make huge profits from the attacks, and was it really all some huge insurance fraud?
Why was the WTC specifically insured against terrorism just before the attacks?
Silverstein Properties have made substantial profits as a result of the WTC collapse
And we know Silverstein made almost $500 million on the collapse of WTC7
Building 7 wasn�t significantly damaged by the main WTC collapse, so there was no reason for it to fall
The claim that there wasn�t enough water to fight WTC7 is a lie
WTC7 only had small, limited fires.
Footage of the WTC7 collapse shows clear signs of demolition squibs.
Larry Silverstein admitted that WTC7 was intentionally demolished, anyway
Links to related sites |
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm
You better ask Jeff Rense for help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| ?? |
You're stumped!?!
Wow, that's gotta be a first.
Anyways, you really should look into it. Work on "getting to the bottom of things" as it were.
It's really quite "interesting" WHO had their offices there, & why it would make all that much more sense
for "I AM NOT A CROOK" Silverstein to order the building "pulled". |
WHO Bully-Joo ... WHO?
Try & keep your response succint as well please.
Frankly i don't have time to work my way through a hackneyed cut & paste job when waiting for "direct" answer;
or at least some semblance of an attempted response.
Just so readers aren't distracted here, I'll ask you again:
Who had their Offices & HQ based out of WTC7?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Again it seems you don't like that site much well get used to it.
My advice to you is to ask Jeff Rense for help.
You conspiracy sites aren't up to speed any more. What R you gonna do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Who had their Offices & HQ based out of WTC7? |
Oh for Christ's sake, why don't you just TELL us!? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd rather have our Jooish conspiracy theorist tell us who had offices there instead of the torrent of verbal diarrhea he keeps unleashing on us.
Answer the question Joo please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
I'd rather have our Jooish conspiracy theorist tell us who had offices there instead of the torrent of verbal diarrhea he keeps unleashing on us.
Answer the question Joo please. |
Take your America hating verbal diarrhea and choke on it. You moonbat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes yes yes, IGTG, it was a freaking 40 storey building so there were LOTS of offices in there but of course you are referring to the CIA offices. So, in your twisted world the CIA rigged the building for demolition months or possibly even decades ago just in case they ever needed to have the building "pulled" by their pointman, rich Jew/Zionist/CIA operative Silverstein.
Freaking diabolical, and how smart of you to spot it. What I want to know is- how did they get Zionists to pilot the planes into the WTC towers that day? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
I'd rather have our Jooish conspiracy theorist tell us who had offices there instead of the torrent of verbal diarrhea he keeps unleashing on us.
Answer the question Joo please. |
You've got to be kidding. I'd like to see- JUST ONCE, BECAUSE IT HAS NEVER FREAKING HAPPENED HERE YET- just once I'd like to see IGTG answer one of his own questions and/or explain the significance.
Why?
J'accuse monsieur! I accuse IGTG of being nothing more than a freaking parrot, a mouthpiece, regurgitating and repeating here verbatim the pap and detrius that he stumbles across on the internet without truly understanding what it is he is repeating.
He doesn't post his own thoughts or opinions except for smileys and asking ridiculously short and cryptic sentences.
J'accusse... SHOW ME ONE (1) FREAKING PARAGRAPH OF ORIGINAL THOUGHT FROM THIS MORON.
You can't, it doesn't exist.
I'd like to see it one day though, and I'll know it when I see it because it'll look like something written by Karl Pilkington. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wake up everybody. It was a conspiracy, planned by Osama and associates. We all saw the videos of the airplanes hitting the buildings. The fires burned and the buildings fell just as those of us who studied engineering would expect they would.
Come on guitarman, you have some good points sometimes, but not this time. I've spent hours looking over those websites you've posted and those guys haven't got a clue about engineering design or strengths of materials. Really, I spent years studying civil engineering. The planes hit the towers and debris hit other buildings. We can see the damage in some pictures to building 7. It's really no surprise that it fell.
As for the towers. The steel supports don't have to melt through for the building to fall. They only have to get hot enough to lose strength. This loss of strength will happen unevenly causing severe forces due to the weight of the upper floors to be applied on small areas and joints. The pressure would build up on one joint causing it to rupture. This would sound like an explosion (bombs) to most people. This would lead to more pressure on the remaining members and joints. Then, another joint will rupture. Eventually, the load would surpass the carrying capacity of the remaining members and joints. This would be followed by total failure of the structure.
The tower hit second in the attack fell first because of these principles. The load above the fires was greater, so, as the damage from the airplane and the fire weakened the members and joints, the greater load being carried caused this building to collapse first.
Osama was a trained engineer. So were many of his close associates who helped him plan this attack. He knew well what he was doing and released a video discussing the engineering debate he had had with his terrorist collegues. He studied engineering and planned another career before the US interventionists caused him to become an enemy of the US.
It is the highly educated middle and upper classes (especially scientists, mathematicians, engineers etc.) who are likely to be disillusioned by the failure of America to live up to its mythology. AFTER they become disillusioned, they look for answers. It is at this point that these newly disillusioned individuals meet up with those who were previously radicalized. This is the ONLY place where you can blame the US government for 911. Decades of interventionism created a huge group of disillusioned people around the world. They expect nothing from other nations and dictators like Sadam. They expect everything from America. When an ordinary man falls from grace, no one notices. But when a hero falls, the world suffers greatly.
To end terror in the world, we have to study the pschology of terrorism. How are terrorists created? How about the new group in Canada? They keep coming in exactly the way I have described here. It is no surprise.
The most important thing for the America to do, if we are to ever end the terror that plagues the world, is to return to its founding PRINCIPLES and maintain them absolutely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, some sanity, that's good.
Let's remember why Joo started this thread:
Because Dylan Avery, the maker of the LOOSE CHANGE video, has stated on camera that the mysteries surrounding the destruction of WTC 7 are the best existing evidence of a conspiracy.
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?mode=w&save=0&id=956 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
