On video camera, he told reporters the buildings were coming down before they did.
2007-10-22 05:23:54 · 17 answers · asked by Waas up 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Google 9/11 Mysteries, @ 52:35. You can hear his comments, also view several other sources sighting, pre knowledge of collapse / demolition after Rudy's comment. I think watching the buildings pulverize is glaring evidence demonition on WTC 1,2 and 7. Your eyes don't lie, its the people doing the spoon feeding that are lying.
2007-10-22 06:03:49 · update #1
Makes you also wonder why he wasn't in his mayoral bunker in building 7 that day.
Just like 911 makes you wonder because the FBI had Moussaoi(20th hijacker) for weeks before 911 why the plot wasn't foiled!
The real conspiracy theorists are the people who accept the government version as gospel!
Why are they so afraid of a second investigation if the government has told us nothing but the truth?
2007-10-22 05:44:11 · answer #1 · answered by honestamerican 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
1. WIth respect to Rudy, if such a comment were really made and if it was really significant, then it would be in all the newspapers.
Since it's only on a google movie, I assume it's non-existent, or doctored, or out of context, or not significant.
2. The towers were not "pulverized."
Whenever a building or stadium collapses, you get a large dust cloud, no matter what the cause. So the question becomes, was the dust cloud too big (suggesting that bombs went off) when WTC1&2 collapsed? Only an expert can tell you whether the dust cloud was more consistent with bombs than with collapse alone.
Fortunately, we have experts who have analyzed the collapse. Moreover, they published their findings for all to see in an article in the leading demolition journal, ImplosionWorld. They say the collapse did not look like a “controlled demolition.” See Point #1 in:
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
That pretty much settles that observation.
2007-10-22 07:52:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
unquestionably, the impact of the planes on my own brought about important harm to the exterior/indoors and the hearth that ensued burned warm sufficient and long sufficient to distort and weaken the metallic interior the homes. Given the thermal develop of metallic, a a hundred and fifty°C temperature distinction from one area to a distinctive will produce yield-point residual stresses. This produced distortions interior the narrow structural metallic, which led to buckling failures. to that end, the failure of the metallic develop into by using 2 factors: loss of power because of the temperature of the hearth, and scarcity of structural integrity by using distortion of the metallic from the non-uniform temperatures interior the hearth. No clothier of the WTC expected, nor could have expected, a ninety,000 L Molotov cocktail on between the development flooring. Skyscrapers are designed to assist themselves for 3 hours in a hearth whether the sprinkler gadget fails to function. This time could be long sufficient to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to 2 hours—below the layout existence, yet basically because of the fact the hearth gasoline load develop into so great. No commonly used workplace fires might fill 4,000 sq. meters of floor area interior the seconds wherein the WTC hearth stepped forward. in many cases, the hearth might take in to an hour to unfold so uniformly around the width and breadth of the development. This develop into an exceedingly great and quickly progressing hearth..
2016-10-04 08:42:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Another twisted CT. Rudy said that the buildings would probably have to be taken down due the the extensive damage. Twist, twist, twist. Or more accurately, outright lie.
2007-10-22 06:26:45 · answer #4 · answered by Bleh! 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If he knew that would he have been there. He just ran into a near by building as the towers fell and was trapped there because the ruble came down around the building he was in.
Come on THINK.
2007-10-22 05:32:00 · answer #5 · answered by jmack 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No link? Really? So we should just take your word for it. Go mind your bridge troll. Reality says a bunch of terrorists flew planes into the WTC, this is hard to believe, why?
2007-10-22 05:43:31 · answer #6 · answered by Scott B 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Pieces of the two buildings were scattered all over the street. He had to warn of possible collapse to get gawkers away from the site. This murderous act was not a conspiracy within the U.S.; it was planned and executed by Islamic thugs.
2007-10-22 05:33:10 · answer #7 · answered by Goethe's Ghostwriter 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Rudy proved to me last night listening to the debates, that he is better off as a mayor.
2007-10-22 05:29:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
will you stop with this conspiracy crap, you haven't been able to prove anything. the truthers are nut jobs who've had their chances and had their representatives on t.v shows and they haven't been able to prove anything. the buildings fell down who cares how it happened, buildings are falling down everyday in iraq, and we KNOW who is responsible for that, that's what you need to go after the Government for.
2007-10-22 05:34:50 · answer #9 · answered by B 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Ok,sure and the Clintons bombed the WTC in 1993 and really did the OK bombing. Coincidence they were in the Whitehouse when they both happened. I think not. See,I'm a better conspiracy theorist then you.
2007-10-22 05:28:43 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋