XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.curre
t-events.wtc.bush-knew
From: Phatty@Boombatty.com
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 13:38:15 -0500, BDK
wrote:
>In article ,
>Phatty@Boombatty.com says...
>> On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 14:40:35 GMT, Vandar wrote:
>>
>> >David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>> >
>> >> "DemzRock" wrote in message news:XuOdn
ZD-uzVq3vYnZ2dnUVZ_sGqnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >>
>> >>>"Animal05" wrote in message
>> >>>news:12ucd6283rdrnaa@corp.supernews.com...
>> >>>
>> >>>>Bull. WTC 7's collaspe was predicted from early in the afternoon.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yes, SHILL..... would you tell us HOW it was even theoretically
possible to
>> >> predict the perfectly vertical "collapse" of a 47-story tall, steel
framed building
>> >> which had some damage on the outer surface of one side, and isolated
fires
>> >> burning on only two floors.... when, never before in history and never
since,
>> >> has ANY steel framed skyscraper collapsed from fire. On WHAT knowledge
>> >> could *anyone * have * possibly* had the ability to make such anm
incomprehensible
>> >> PREDICTION. ???
>> >
>> >Here's something you've been provided a dozen times before. Maybe you
>> >should read it this time.
>> >
>> >*******************
>> >Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in
>> >the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them
>> >off?
>> >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.
>> >http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
>>
>> People = "it"
>>
>> as in, "they made the decision to pull it, and then we watched the
>> building collapse. (it means people, of course)
>>
>> Funny thing about the "people" who continue to believe the lies, "it"
>> will just never get the truth.
>>
>
>LOL, and who are the "it" people, the FDNY?
>
>BDK
Er, no, because, as in the quote above: "we didn't make any attempt to
fight it" - no attempt to fight it = no FDNY "it" to be pulled. Keep
trying, tho.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
