Creative Speculation

hack89

(39,180 posts)

35. WTC-7 burned for hours after huge chunks of the towers fell on it

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 08:53 AM

Sep 2012

the FDNY reported a 20 story gouge in the front of the building. They were monitoring a bulge in the side of the building hours before it collapsed. They had abandoned all firefighting efforts and let several massive fires burn out of control.

These are all documented facts - you need to look further than conspiracy sites for your information.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

56 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

11 years later... [View all] PopeOxycontinI Sep 2012 OP

Did you actually read the paper? LARED Sep 2012 #1

Aaah look, how cute, someone that still believes that the government would never lie to them... truebrit71 Sep 2012 #2

Aaah look, how cute, zappaman Sep 2012 #3

Do you believe the official narrative though? truebrit71 Sep 2012 #5

Yes zappaman Sep 2012 #6

No point is there really? truebrit71 Sep 2012 #7

Nope. zappaman Sep 2012 #8

"... some box cutters..." terrafirma Sep 2012 #9

Yup, box cutters are much more powerful than say, I dunno F-16's, or just about any assault rifle... truebrit71 Sep 2012 #13

The pilots and flight crew didn't have access to assault rifles, or F-16s for that matter. Flatulo Sep 2012 #51

What a load of horse pucky LARED Sep 2012 #11

Air transport ground to a halt. The Stock markets were closed for DAYS. truebrit71 Sep 2012 #20

And hit the Pentagon Politicalboi Sep 2012 #12

You do know that there were hundreds of eyewitnesses at the Pentagon hack89 Sep 2012 #16

So why not release the video-tapes? truebrit71 Sep 2012 #18

Here are the accounts hack89 Sep 2012 #21

So why not release the video-tapes? truebrit71 Sep 2012 #22

How would that negate all the eyewitness accounts? hack89 Sep 2012 #23

Release the videotapes. With that many witnesses they can't hold any surprises can they? truebrit71 Sep 2012 #24

Beats me. hack89 Sep 2012 #25

No it isn't a good thing. truebrit71 Sep 2012 #27

There were hundreds of witnesses that saw a plane hack89 Sep 2012 #28

So release the videotapes.. truebrit71 Sep 2012 #30

It will make no difference hack89 Sep 2012 #32

Of course it will. If it shows what these many many hundreds of witness accounts... truebrit71 Sep 2012 #34

Have you asked the Pentagon? nt hack89 Sep 2012 #36

No, but others have to no avail. truebrit71 Sep 2012 #38

Look at the bright side - now you have a life long hobby. nt hack89 Sep 2012 #39

Oh trust me...I ALWAYS look on the bright side of life... truebrit71 Sep 2012 #40

Numerous witnesses described the aircraft cpwm17 Sep 2012 #29

"There is no withheld video"...."You've got nothing"... truebrit71 Sep 2012 #33

Alright, old-timer cpwm17 Sep 2012 #47

Then why not release the videotapes? truebrit71 Sep 2012 #48

I don't know about any videos, and I don't care cpwm17 Sep 2012 #49

Yeah, right - it will 'shut the CTers up'. Never gonna happen. Flatulo Sep 2012 #53

They did release the tapes William Seger Sep 2012 #55

Out of deference to the sensibilities of the families maybe? cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #54

So tell us how the Pentagon should have 'armed itself'. As far as I can tell, it's a really Flatulo Sep 2012 #52

I am still trying to figure out how 2 planes hit 2 buildings dixiegrrrrl Sep 2012 #17

How many buildings have been hit with fully loaded 767s traveling at a high speed? hack89 Sep 2012 #26

Re-read the post...that's not what she is saying truebrit71 Sep 2012 #31

WTC-7 burned for hours after huge chunks of the towers fell on it hack89 Sep 2012 #35

Well, it's not like those 19 guys beat us in a war. They hijacked some airplanes. Flatulo Sep 2012 #50

The fact youdid not anwer my question has not LARED Sep 2012 #10

And your defense of PNAC hasn't escaped notice either... truebrit71 Sep 2012 #14

Nice try. How is asking if you read the PNAC report defending the report? nt LARED Sep 2012 #15

This isn't a defense? "there is nothing suspicious about it" truebrit71 Sep 2012 #19

truthers unite! snooper2 Sep 2012 #4

here's a theory Shagman Sep 2012 #37

Do you understand how small missiles are? How large 757s are? hack89 Sep 2012 #41

I'll use small words ... Shagman Sep 2012 #42

A Tomahawk missile is only 18 inches wide - it's wing span is less than 9 feet hack89 Sep 2012 #43

Some people can nt LARED Sep 2012 #44

people see what they expect to see Shagman Sep 2012 #45

Would you ever mistake a Fiat 500 for a semi-truck if it passed within 50 feet? hack89 Sep 2012 #46

Here's a freight train headed for the huge hole in your "theory"... cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #56