WTC 7 - was it leaning all afternoon and going to collapse - or is it just an urban myth?, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 27 times


reply posted on 7-6-2009 @ 03:34 PM by impressme
reply to post by exponent



You don't see any damage?


No!

You're joking right?


Not at all.

Not only is there clearly debris and a missing section in the above photo,


Wow, someone convinced you to see something that’s not there.

but this corresponds to external damage progressing the whole length of the building.


No it doesn’t, that is your “opinion,” and I disagree with you.

Sure, no building exists in the area that could cast that shadow.


really, can you prove that?

You surely have googled around and found that no building exists that could possibly have cast that shadow, and what you are asking me to prove is a negative.


Negative! Were in this statement I ask you to prove a negative? How about answering my question that I ask you FIRST!

One cannot prove that photos have not been photoshopped, only whether they have.


No one knows what they are looking at. You only assume you are looking at gash. I see a straight shadow in a haze of smoke. No one has been able to prove what it is, furthermore, where’s the close ups of this alleged gash. Funny, how they got close up of the firer at all the three sides of the WTC, but not the side of this allege gash. No my “opinion” the photo is photo shopped. Funny, how they got the photos of close up of the building gash across the street and the building stood. Funny, they had “ ALL DAY ” to film or take close up pictures of this “alleged gash on WTC 7.

Perhaps you should go and talk to the firefighters who viewed WTC7 with their own eyes,


You mean all the firemen that went on record, who saw explosions and flashing going around the WTC as they were exploding to pieces, hurling steel girders and still beams hundreds of feet in the air. You mean these firemen that heard pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, and explosions in the basements of the WTC, you mean the explosions in the lobbies in all the WTC towers that these firemen all wittiness, and even caught on video before the WTC came down. Perhaps, you should go talk to these firemen who witness the demise of the WTC with their own eyes.

perhaps you should admit you are wrong


If I am wrong I can admit, because, I am a grown up. However, I know that I am RIGHT! but, this thread is not about me is it.

and indeed WTC7 was damaged by debris impacts from WTC1.


No, you are wrong. All the WTC were blown to pieces and that is a fact.


[edit on 7-6-2009 by impressme]


reply posted on 7-6-2009 @ 03:57 PM by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by tezzajw





It looks like we can count on you, Swampfox, being the staunch government story supporter that you are, as another person who is critical of the NIST report? Welcome to the ranks!


Again, reading something into the statement that just isnt there. Tezzie, Im not critical of the report. I say it is an educated guess because to have a comprehensive report, the building would have had to been full of sensors to show exactly what was going on inside the building, without them, ANY report is going to be an educated guess.



reply posted on 7-6-2009 @ 04:01 PM by _BoneZ_


reply posted on 7-6-2009 @ 04:54 PM by esdad71
reply to post by _BoneZ_



LOL,man, do you really think that anything you wrote discredits me? I should move on? You would like that then there is no one to offer an opposing view. I am talking to the OP.

Yes, the kink, as I had read, was visible for more than an hour. I clarifiy as I did not mean it was like that the entire 7 hours.

Nothing is sunk.....Just wondering where you come up with this stuff. There is nothing wrong with the video you just choose to discredit it. Your choice. However, WHERE is ONE of the explosive detonators or caps or trace of squib from the collapse? Jsut one. There is no need to ship them to China as steel. Where are they? Just one....your boat just caught on fire....

This is no urban myth. We both use firefighters as examples of what happened so who is telling the truth?

NIST stated that is was not the damage from the WTC collapse that CAUSED the collapse but assisted it.


reply posted on 7-6-2009 @ 05:46 PM by tezzajw
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Tezzie,

You and pteridine must read from the same debunker manual, Swampfox. He called me tezzalini and you call me tezzie.

It's a well known, common debunker tactic to use personal insults against the poster, instead of attacking their arguments.

Both of your tactics are so boring and transparent, I don't know why you still persist with them.

As long as you think that they're working, then go right ahead!

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Im not critical of the report. I say it is an educated guess because to have a comprehensive report, the building would have had to been full of sensors to show exactly what was going on inside the building, without them, ANY report is going to be an educated guess.

Let me try and understand this. You admit that the NIST report is, in many instances, an educated guess - yet you're not criticial of it?

You're happy to accept hand-waved guesses in an official government report because that report agrees with your opinion?

Why do you appear to enjoy thinking up new contradictions for us to read on a regular basis, Swampfox?

At least in the above paragraph, Swampfox has admitted that it was only an educated guess that Column 79 failed. It might not have happened like that because it was inside the building and we don't know if it happened that way, according to him. Yet, despite that, there's no reason to be critical of the report - ahhh-huh.

Swampfox, I asked for them earlier in the thread, but has anyone been able to post the transit results taken for WTC 7? I've yet to see any proof that it was leaning all afternoon.


pteridine - it's been 39 hours now and I have not been able to access the NIST website to download that file. I hope that the NIST website servers haven't caught on fire.



reply posted on 7-6-2009 @ 06:33 PM by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by esdad71
Yes, the kink, as I had read, was visible for more than an hour.

So now you read it somewhere? In
this post here you claimed the kink was there for hours. Now you change your story to say that you read it somewhere and now it's "more than an hour". Which is it? Why can't you keep your story straight? I told you you should've moved on before you make yourself look worse. Now look what you've done.

The image you showed in your post was taken from a video of the collapse in progress. There was no kink. Here's a close-up of the video I posted in my last post:

whatreallyhappened.com...


Originally posted by esdad71
WHERE is ONE of the explosive detonators or caps or trace of squib from the collapse?

You should ask the federal authorities who secured the area and started scooping up the debris within hours.


Originally posted by esdad71
NIST stated that is was not the damage from the WTC collapse that CAUSED the collapse but assisted it.

No NIST did not:

WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires...


Even without the structural damage WTC7 still would've collapsed. That means WTC1 had zero impact on WTC7 according to NIST.

You keep being proved wrong time and time again. Ready to move on yet?


reply posted on 7-6-2009 @ 06:51 PM by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by tezzajw



Tezzie, is a pet name, if you dont like it, I will stop using it...

As for the report, they took the photos, the videos, the witness statements and came up with the most plausible explanation for what happened. I can accept that, because I know that for engineering investigations, they normally have all sorts of data from sensors, cameras, etc to help them determine what happened. For the WTC buildings....they dont have all that.


reply posted on 7-6-2009 @ 07:21 PM by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by bsbray11



Direct statements from the witnesses that were there is not hearsay.


reply posted on 7-6-2009 @ 07:24 PM by bsbray11
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999



You're not the witness, though, so it IS hearsay.

If what's-his-name was on here defending himself, then it would be another story. YOU wouldn't be allowed to testify on his behalf in court, either. Also hearsay.

As it stands, all YOU have is hearsay. Come on, Swamp, you can see the freaking building in pictures and video all the way until the time it collapses. You aren't REALLY trying to say the whole thing was leaning for hours are you?

[edit on 7-6-2009 by bsbray11]
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 16 days ago with 14 member flags
Newest 9/11 Documentary - Proof 9/11 was an inside Job
  Posted 0 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 9 days ago with 13 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 16 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags
Remains of 9/11 victim identified
  Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags