How could fox report the collapse of bldg 7 before it collapsed? This video shows fox news reportint the collapse before it happened. Nice catch by Pilots for truth. Any one care to try and explain that blunder logicaly?

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=10794&st=0

ahh omg thats just the proof of all proof that everything is a lie... oh no!!!! just better end it all now no sense on going on if life in itself is a lie....

outlaws93
Posted Sat 09 February 2008 12:28 PM
ahh omg thats just the proof of all proof that everything is a lie... oh no!!!! just better end it all now no sense on going on if life in itself is a lie....


Exactly the type of answer I would expect from you Denial. Why dont you try to come up with a reasonable answer instead of wasting bandwith with inane comments. Fox news reported the collapse before it occured. Its right there in front of your eyes,and you cant even blame photo shop. Please I want to understand Im sure you have an answer. S dont convolude the issue stay with just this one. How did they report what didnt happen. Clairvoient????

How do you know if that was live footage? It could have been tape delayed by 30 seconds or so, and the audio "heads up" they were receiving could have been from someone who had seen it, then was sending them a the recording at near real time - not that unusual. In football, it's called instant replay, right??

quote:

Originally posted by greywolfghost:
How do you know if that was live footage? It could have been tape delayed by 30 seconds or so, and the audio "heads up" they were receiving could have been from someone who had seen it, then was sending them a the recording at near real time - not that unusual. In football, it's called instant replay, right??

yea that day they started to dely it a little longer then 30secs.... with all the people jumping out of buildings and all they didnt know what was going on... all kinds of false reports were coming out of the mess... i watched all day all week for like 6months i was glued to the tv....

i would agree with GWG, either that or they were mistaking building #'s. it happened to a lot of us down there. conspiracy: doubtful.

but keep trying, this is fun!

greywolfghost
Posted Sat 09 February 2008 05:49 PM
How do you know if that was live footage? It could have been tape delayed by 30 seconds or so, and the audio "heads up" they were receiving could have been from someone who had seen it, then was sending them a the recording at near real time - not that unusual. In football, it's called instant replay, right??



Yes thats true but on 9/11 all the stations were broadcasting live and as events happened, the time stamp is on the video footage when it was investigated for accuracy, same thing was reported when Bush announced seeing the second plane hit the towers before it happened when he was at the school. Theres so much that needs to be clarified and the reason we need a new investigation.

Of course 9/11 was planned. The terrorists spend months training for it.

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
greywolfghost
Posted Sat 09 February 2008 05:49 PM
How do you know if that was live footage? It could have been tape delayed by 30 seconds or so, and the audio "heads up" they were receiving could have been from someone who had seen it, then was sending them a the recording at near real time - not that unusual. In football, it's called instant replay, right??



Yes thats true but on 9/11 all the stations were broadcasting live and as events happened, the time stamp is on the video footage when it was investigated for accuracy, same thing was reported when Bush announced seeing the second plane hit the towers before it happened when he was at the school. Theres so much that needs to be clarified and the reason we need a new investigation.

no john by the time the buildings were coming down they were at a 90sec delay... it was live when it first started to go on then after all the people jumping out of the buildings they went to a 90sec delay.... i watched it all day for 6 months with hardly no sleep i was glued to that tv set...

quote:

Originally posted by foxred03:
Of course 9/11 was planned. The terrorists spend months training for it.

well they spent years plotting and planing for it...

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
How could fox report the collapse of bldg 7 before it collapsed? This video shows fox news reportint the collapse before it happened. Nice catch by Pilots for truth. Any one care to try and explain that blunder logicaly?

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=10794&st=0

And yet no major news organizations have picked up this story. I'm going with the 30+ second delay. And who are these people, anyway?
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=6533

quote:

Originally posted by greywolfghost:
How do you know if that was live footage? It could have been tape delayed by 30 seconds or so, and the audio "heads up" they were receiving could have been from someone who had seen it, then was sending them a the recording at near real time - not that unusual. In football, it's called instant replay, right??

Hey Grey, Rosie Mc Nuts says fire can't melt steel as well! I guess my Grandpa didn't know that either, as he came from the South and worked for the steel mils in Gary In. for over 35 years! Geeesssssh!

stickshauler3
Hey Grey, Rosie Mc Nuts says fire can't melt steel as well! I guess my Grandpa didn't know that either, as he came from the South and worked for the steel mils in Gary In. for over 35 years! Geeesssssh!


Hate to break it to you but Rosie McNuts is right. Prove it to youself pour 25 gals of jet fuel into a 55 gal steel drum and light it up let us know when it melts hang some steel beams above it to and let us know when it liqifies. should keep you busy for a few days till the fuel burns off, Then try it again for as long as it takes. Then ask your grandpa about the difference between a fire and foundry temperatures. You probably missunderstood him.

wow man but yet dont forget to add the other flammable material into the mix.... dude this is stupid there is no conspiracy behind this none what so ever.... they are lies created by some real hateful people to make money from gullible people... it is as it appears no conspiracy behind any of it none just accept that because it is the truth....

outlaws93
Posted Sun 10 February 2008 11:31 PM
wow man but yet dont forget to add the other flammable material into the mix.... dude this is stupid there is no conspiracy behind this none what so ever.... they are lies created by some real hateful people to make money from gullible people... it is as it appears no conspiracy behind any of it none just accept that because it is the truth....



Now who's being Gullible. Wheres the proof other than your opinion vrs the opinion of the so many Gov and professional scholars? Its good to have your opinion but to state as fact Is less than ludicris in light of the many unanswered questions on so many coverups. I hope know You really aint fooling anyone OL your job here on Mil.com is to counter anything covert, or anti Admin. Its so obvious Id be ashamed to be better at it.

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
stickshauler3
Hey Grey, Rosie Mc Nuts says fire can't melt steel as well! I guess my Grandpa didn't know that either, as he came from the South and worked for the steel mils in Gary In. for over 35 years! Geeesssssh!


Hate to break it to you but Rosie McNuts is right. Prove it to youself pour 25 gals of jet fuel into a 55 gal steel drum and light it up let us know when it melts hang some steel beams above it to and let us know when it liqifies. should keep you busy for a few days till the fuel burns off, Then try it again for as long as it takes. Then ask your grandpa about the difference between a fire and foundry temperatures. You probably missunderstood him.

You don't need to melt steel to fatally weaken it. Structural steel loses its strenght well short of its melting temp. With a proper draft, a coal fire is hot enough to do that. That's all a blacksmith uses.

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
outlaws93
Posted Sun 10 February 2008 11:31 PM
wow man but yet dont forget to add the other flammable material into the mix.... dude this is stupid there is no conspiracy behind this none what so ever.... they are lies created by some real hateful people to make money from gullible people... it is as it appears no conspiracy behind any of it none just accept that because it is the truth....



Now who's being Gullible. Wheres the proof other than your opinion vrs the opinion of the so many Gov and professional scholars? Its good to have your opinion but to state as fact Is less than ludicris in light of the many unanswered questions on so many coverups. I hope know You really aint fooling anyone OL your job here on Mil.com is to counter anything covert, or anti Admin. Its so obvious Id be ashamed to be better at it.

you are just really out there huh...

scooter_mech
You don't need to melt steel to fatally weaken it.


Thats correct, Never said it didnt. Liqifieng and weakening are two different things.

john, look I know this is your pet subject but it just has too much going against it. Not the least of which is the inhuman ammounts of secrecy needed.

I hate to tell you boys, but Rosie McNuts is DEAD WRONG! Also your anology about burninig jet fuel is not completely right. Excuse me, but what type of Jet Fuel are you burning? JP-4 or JP-5? COMM 40, 45,or 44 0r Comm JET 01 or JET-1A?
JP-4 has a lower flash point and a higher burn temp because,.....it has more AVGAS in it than JP-5!
The steel does not have to catch fire to soften and melt!!! The Jet fuel used more commonly today and then, burns at a much higher rate than is the tensile strength of that structural steel. Also the towers were not built in the conventional method other large buildings were.
There was less heavy structural steel than in comparable buildings.
The jet fuel can burn at temperatures more than 2600 to 3000 degrees farenheit. Most mild or structural steel will begin to soften and loss strength with temps much lower than that.
Also, do you know how much fuel was burning and for how long? You're talking anywhere from 10,000 pounds to 30,000 pounds of fuel. Try around 6.7 or so pounds per gallon and that's alot of fuel!!!!!!
Rosie does not know Sh%&t from Shinola about anything aviation or structures. She's a loud mouth who talks with out thinking or knowing just because she has an audience.
I worked twenty years as an Aviation Mate's Mate and Aviation Safety Petty Officer and have taken courses on Gas Turbine Engine Technology through the Navy Correspondence Training. Courses that discuss and talk about Aviation fuels, their handling and fire precautions.
Rosie is ......a sh5t for brains with anything technical!

Excuse me, Aviation Machinist Mate. This crap and mis-information burns me up! Just goes to prove how one loud mouthed idiot on television can gum up so much!