You miss the point. (BTW, it's "you're" when you mean "you are"). It's not me who's right. I wasn't there. I presented the reports of the experts who were on the scene, which completely contradict your unsupported claim that there weren't huge fires in WTC 7. I want to know why your reply is "maybe," and not, "Oh, I didn't know that. I guess I should do my homework next time."
but this is what turned me on to the whole 9/11 disaster after I had somewhat put it all past me:
http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_lostvoicesfiredept.html
I have no idea what your point is here. Chief Palmer died. That sucks. And?
The Port Authority tapes prove the "official report" that explains the outrageous number of firefighter deaths, that was signed by him and the mayor, was a straight up lie.
Maybe my mind got caught up in the conspiracy again because...
well because the FDNY Commissioner and the mayor of NYC was LYING about the reason so many firemen died that day.
Ah. Okay. Well, the Orio Palmer example was a bad one. He was on the 78th floor of the south tower seven minutes before it collapsed. He wasn't going to make it out no matter what communications systems they had.
And you have posted quotes from firemen and their chief's which claim that they were afraid that the building was going to "fall down" .
Yes. WTC 7. If you have a problem with their statements, come out and say it.
This isn't a "huge" fire compared to the size of the structure,
What's your basis for that statement?
since you've made it obvious that you cannot see through the smoke screen... at least you posted an image that proves that there was NO fire showing on that side of the building prior to collapse.
I made no such thing obvious. Do you think you know, based on some photos, more than the people on the scene? Are those couple of photos the be-all and end-all of our knowledge about WTC 7, or should we consult the professionals who were there? The determination of the size and extent of the fires is based on the expert reports, not on the two photos you posted. The photos, and videos,
http://tinyurl.com/f3tvd http://tinyurl.com/zg4un show a huge volume of smoke coming from many floors. If you want to argue that the volume of smoke is produced by small fires, go ahead, but support your argument with facts. Actually, forget that for now. I'd like to know – based only on the photos and videos – not including the eyewitness reports – why you
think there weren't huge fires in WTC 7.
Look at the other building right next to it, there is structural damage to that building as well, but for some reason there wasn't a single fire caused by the collapse of the twin towers.
hmmmm.
Quite a foolish statement. WFC 3 is nowhere near WTC 7, nor did it sustain deep structural damage. When are you going to stop making these uneducated pronouncements? It doesn't take a lot of time to look up a few facts. Or, you know, you could just ask. We're an excellent resource, for those who care about learning.
You follow the words of your leader, and I'll follow the words of mine.
Take me to your leader. I'd like to have a word or two.
Overreacting? No way. If they're talking like this on a public message board, imagine the ideas that get floated when they gather in private.
