Posted on 11/04/2001 5:59:00 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
Please realise that I am aware that there was much video coverage on September 11. The news heliocopters did an excellent job. Fox was my favorite but we watched other channels, too. It was puzzling and disappointing to see this TV news reporting stopped. After that the only filming shown was supplied by the government and the mayor ruled that no pictures would be allowed.
The entire country watched in horror that first day when the towers imploded. When the issue was broached that they were imploded, the media and many on this board reacted with a vengeance stating that this was an impossibility.
Many articles flowed from the media trying to rule out the implosion concept. There were conferences at MIT, etc. Each posited the logicality of an airplane strike causing the towers to fall. MIT admitted then that it no explanation for building #7.
We do have more to say, perhaps at another time.
P.S. I do believe it odd that the implosion concept is denounced so vehemently.
Hey, Moo! Check out this article, btw!
I wonder if this gets yanked by the "Posting Police?"
Gee, what *could* you have been implying then? < /sarcasm >
Please realise that I am aware that there was much video coverage on September 11. The news heliocopters did an excellent job.
In your post #24, you said, and I am quoting directly, Building #7 IMPLODED at 5PM, September 11. From the exterior no fires were seen at the time of implosion. It was the farthest away in the complex from the Twin Towers. Building #3, a hotel, did not come until it was later demolished.The other buildings had roof damage from the rubble. Did anyone wonder why the authorities refused to have news heliocopters in the area?....and that pictures were forbidden?
Now you admit there WERE helicopters and photographers on the scene on 9/11 at the time of the collapse of #7. So, for the last time, WHAT WERE YOU TRYING TO IMPLY by hinting that "the authorities" ordered helicopters and photographers away, and that no fires were seen in #7 prior to its collapse? You know it's not true and yet you posted it anyway.
It was puzzling and disappointing to see this TV news reporting stopped.
That didn't happen for another week or two. It was not stopped on 9/11, though that's exactly what you were insinuating.
After that the only filming shown was supplied by the government and the mayor ruled that no pictures would be allowed.
Complete and total BS. The coverage was not supplied by the government but by local and national news reporters. Not just on 9/11 but afterward.
The "No Camera" rule handed down by the mayor applied to TOURISTS ONLY at the barricades around the frozen zone. The crowds were getting out of hand, posing for stupid group shots, and climbing the barricades to get their Pulitzer-wannabe angles of it all. And since it was not enforced until at least A WEEK after the attacks, it has absolutely nothing to do with the building collapses on 9/11. You were trying to claim it did. And don't play innocent, I DO know why. You're as transparent as glass.
The entire country watched in horror that first day when the towers imploded. When the issue was broached that they were imploded, the media and many on this board reacted with a vengeance stating that this was an impossibility.
An architect here on FR said that what happened to the Towers was not "imploding" but something called "telescoping", and that telescoping is not what anyone would want to happen in a planned demolition. An implosion would mean that it collapsed inward onto itself. You saw the way those towers fell; down and out.
It's a wrong use of the word, the way so many people think "decimate" means "destroy".
You're being a bit cagey about the furor in the media re the question of "implosion"; I know and you know that you are now talking about a deliberate set implosion using explosives. And that's utter nonsense. There would be no need for the planes. And the planes did just fine on their own.
Many articles flowed from the media trying to rule out the implosion concept. There were conferences at MIT, etc. Each posited the logicality of an airplane strike causing the towers to fall. MIT admitted then that it no explanation for building #7.
I highly doubt that, since it's obvious to most people what took down #7--a great big old fire happened after debris strikes from a height of over a thousand feet weakened the structure. A no-brainer. I have heard of no such conference at MIT, and I've been paying attention--so let's have your sources. Now.
We do have more to say, perhaps at another time.
No, I don't think so. It's now or never, or I guarantee you won't enjoy any future conversations you have with me! I don't go easy on chicken-sh*t liars who would rather believe an utter lunacy than objective reality, and particularly those who refuse to answer direct questions (you haven't answered even one of mine yet), or admit it when they cannot logically defend their asinine positions.
P.S. I do believe it odd that the implosion concept is denounced so vehemently.
That doesn't surprise me in the least. You would find it odd.
LOL. Brace yourself--it's not just in the movies. The CIA is not listed as a tenant at either #6 or #7 WTC. Government agencies appearing as themselves include the Secret Service, IRS, BATF and U.S. Customs.
Maybe I'll post the tenants' list and we can all play "Spot the Spooks". :D
Lots of us here do not agree with each other, but still we do present our views in a civilized manner. Present your views, but don't waste anybody's time for stupid daily exposures.
Is telling a lie, in your opinion, the same thing as "presenting a view"?
It's not a question of mere disagreement, but a whole series of bald-faced lies, told deliberately, for a purpose at which I can only guess (although I'm a pretty good guesser). He had his chance to explain himself and he chose intead to compound the deceit. A lie is not an "opinion" that deserves a respectful response. A liar does not deserve civility. What he deserves is exposure.
What happened at the World Trade Center was bad enough without inventing transparent fairy tales about the disaster to serve a private agenda. I won't stand for it, and yes, since I live here, I do take it personally. If I catch him lying again, I'll call him on it again, and I won't be pulling any punches. If you don't like it, too bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.