WTC 7 proof positive no inside job

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnJasper


My god, you're right! It's just like WTC 7!!! The whole building fell straight down within seconds. NOT!!!


I didn't say it was just like WTC7. I said that it debunks significant numbers of Truther arguments regarding Seven.

It exhibited a loud explosion. The portion that came down - a large annexe - fell extremely fast. There was a collapse wave, "dustification". In that sense it is similar. And all the "evidence" for demolition that Truthers think they see in that stuff is replicated. And therefore false.

It's just not that remarkable that there isn't an exactly congruent collapse like WTC7 somewhere previously. Look at the way it was built. Consider the circumstances of the fire.

Now think about the firemen. Why did they think it was going to come down? Are you suggesting that they knew about the explosives and were stupid enough to draw attention to their imminent use?

Given all that, the only evidence for demolition is that something exactly, precisely the same had never happened before. I don't find that persuasive, given the unusual design. And the size of the category of "things which have occurred with no precedent". It's large - indeed it pretty much includes everything.




posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I can confidently predict that myself,Bonez,impreesme and possibly all the other TM's on here will win the lottery before another three steel framed buildings collapse on the SAME day due to fire, hell not even on the same day, not in the same decade !

[edit on 063030p://09America/Chicago01 by ProRipp]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Zomar
 


WTC 3, better known as the Marriott...ceased to exist on 9/11/01




As a result of the collapse of the Twin Towers, the hotel was destroyed. Approximately 40 people died in the hotel, including two hotel employees and many firefighters who were using the hotel as a staging ground.


en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah I know, wikipedia...so here is this...




WTC 3 was first partially crushed by the steel skeleton fragments from the South Tower and then further crushed by those from the North Tower. In each case the rubble, falling from as much as 1300 feet, collapsed regions spanning several floors but was arrested by the building's steel structure.


911research.wtc7.net...

Normally, its not a website I pay much attention to, due to its..errors, but there is a picture of WTC3 being clobbered by the collapse of the South Tower.




In NYC, 4 buildings were classified as "completely destroyed" at the World Trade Center.

•1 World Trade Center - North Tower
•2 World Trade Center - South Tower
•3 World Trade Center - Marriott Hotel
•7 World Trade Center - Securities & Exchange Commission, and other government/financial businesses


www.sept11marriottsurvivors.org...

So, any other falsehoods that you need me to clear up for you?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klaatumagnum
reply to post by Alfie1
 

That my dear Alfie,
is a load of BULLSH€t! No steel framed buildings before or since have EVER collapsed in such a manner. Either you or your sources are agent's of disinformation. Say hello to the lad's & lasses at MI6 for us. PEACE.


Im sorry......name another steel frame building that has had either an airliner slam into it at high speed OR had a skyscraper collapse into it....



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Open challenge...IF as so many claim, WTC 7 fell into its own footprint....HOW did it damage all the buildings around it? One badly damaged enough that IT had to be torn down.......



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
I can confidently predict that myself,Bonez,impreesme and possibly all the other TM's on here will win the lottery before another three steel framed buildings collapse on the SAME day due to fire, hell not even on the same day, not in the same decade !

[edit on 063030p://09America/Chicago01 by ProRipp]


I can confidently predict that you'll all win the lottery before every building in downtown Hiroshima falls down on the same day.

Does that mean that nobody bombed Hiroshima?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by ProRipp
I can confidently predict that myself,Bonez,impreesme and possibly all the other TM's on here will win the lottery before another three steel framed buildings collapse on the SAME day due to fire, hell not even on the same day, not in the same decade !

[edit on 063030p://09America/Chicago01 by ProRipp]


I can confidently predict that you'll all win the lottery before every building in downtown Hiroshima falls down on the same day.

Does that mean that nobody bombed Hiroshima?



In the twisted, bizzaro world of the 9/11 truther...yes, it does mean that.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
However, I really do believe that the truther belief in a controlled demolition of WTC 7 is complete cr-p. How did the perps hope to get away with it when they had apparently planned nothing but to blow it up ?


since you did ask, I will tell you what I think. I don't know anything for sure, based on what I have seen as evidence. But I have serious doubts on if the events happened like they said. For example, Building 7, it looked fishy. I don't care who you are. I bet GWB watched it and muttered "I hope they don't start asking me questions about that."
Flight 93, looks very fishy. The OS has them hitting the ground at a very steep incline, yet there is wreckage miles away from the "crash site", sorry, I want to believe that it crashed. I would love to believe that the passengers kicked the sheit right out if those terrorists. But I have doubts. The hole in the pentagon and the perfect lawn. Sorry again, fishy. The effort into believing the OS 100% is minimal. I would love to be that guy. Life would be so much easier. I just have doubts.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

WTF has Hiroshima gotta do with it ? Fire didn't destroy it ! A -Snip- huge bomb built by none other than guess who did the damage and were they steel framed skyscrapers ? WTC 1,2 and 7 did not fall due to fire ! Simple as that !

Mod Edit - ABOUT ATS: Vulgarity and The Automatic ATS Censors

[edit on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:35:18 -0500 by MemoryShock]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


" How come the collapse of BLDG 7 was announced PRIOR to its demise by a fair while... "

I can't say for certain but , I'm betting that it had a lot to do with the fact that journalists strive to get the drop on stories before their competition does .

The firemen had cleared the vicinity , pulling everyone out of the zone , because they were certain that a collapse was imminent .

A) A reporter overhead this and jumped the gun in order to be the first to report this , or ...

B) Someone vacating the zone was asked by a reporter why everyone was being pulled back and this someone told the reporter that the building was "falling down" , the reporter , in the midst of all the chaos , misconstrued this to mean that the building had actually 'fallen' down , Reuters hadn't verified it and the BBC picked it up and ran with it .

Wouldn't be the first time that statements have had to be retracted by the media .



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

WTF has Hiroshima gotta do with it ? Fire didn't destroy it ! A f**ckin huge bomb built by none other than guess who did the damage and were they steel framed skyscrapers ? WTC 1,2 and 7 did not fall due to fire ! Simple as that !



Your logic says that aeroplanes and fire cannot have led to the buildings' collapse because such a series of events is very unlikely to happen again.

I'm pointing out another series of events that is very unlikely to happen again. And using your reasoning I can confidently claim that Hiroshima wasn't the subject of a nuclear attack because it's never been repeated.

What you're failing to grasp is that the extraordinary nature of the triple collapse is down to the highly unusual sequence of events that preceded it. Of course a repeat is wildly improbable. But so is a repeat of what happened at Hiroshima.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Zomar
 


Prove what point?

Did you see the pictures provided by the damage analysis ?

Reason WTC 3 did not collapse in same manner as WTC 7 was that it was
flattened - no chance to catch fire which was why WTC 7 collapsed

WTC 3 was crushed by the debris, first from WTC 2 then by WTC 1

The building, except for one section was flattened by the amount of debris falling on it

WTC 7 was completely different - first debris from WTC 1 slashed open south side and kindled & fires in building. The collapse of the towers cut
the water mains which feed sprinklers and standpipes - which is why FDNY
abandoned the fight to try to save it. No water in standpipes means no
water to fight the fires. That combined with structural damage suffered by
the building convinced the fireground commanders to leave it alone and burn



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


" Eye witness reports of explosions going off in WTC 7 long before the towers fell confirm that the building was under direct attack. "

If these "explosions" were charges going off as the result of a 'controlled' demolition , why did it take hours for the building to collapse ?

Pretty shoddy case of CD , if you ask me .

And , as for towers 1&2 being controlled demolition , how did the alleged 'insiders' know that there wouldn't be a kink in their plans concerning the planes that slammed into them ?

And , why would the alleged insiders CD the second tower that was hit , before bringing down the one that was hit first ? After all , you have to admit that it would have made for a more convincing story to have the tower that was impacted first , fall before the one that was impacted later .

CD just does not add up , any way you choose to look at it .



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by KILL_DOGG
Man, common sense threads are on the rise today. S&F for you for bringing in a little truth to the truthers.

And for those talking about it falling straight down....what tends to happen to a structure when the base of said structure is compromised? If one part of the upper structure shifts, it'll take the rest down with it; not crumble or topple.


I'm ashamed to be a part of this site, when a thread as asinine as this gets even 1 star or flag.

"Proof positive no inside job" - what proof? Or do you actually mean a short rant saying "Isn't it obvious?" combined with appeals to emotion, labeling other theories as "absurd". Pot, meet kettle!

This is an affront to intellectual honesty, and an embarrassment to the whole website.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Son of Will]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
And , anyone who thinks that firemen were 'in-the-know' as far as controlled demolition , is one sick puppy , in my book .

To suggest that firemen would knowingly let 300+ of their brothers perish , is beyond reprehensible . That has to be the most utterly disgusting and despicable thing that anyone , anywhere , could suggest .

And , to think that you guys call the government evil .



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
It is alleged that WTC 7 was, along with WTC 1&2, wired for demolition pre-9/11.


I have drunk 24 beers and am still waiting for your proof? Watch the architects and engineers for truth video! If you still think it was brought down by the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny who compiled the Governments report on 9/11 can you come round my house I have a gold plated tooth worth a million dollars that needs collecting



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by KILL_DOGG
 


Hey you seem like just the guy to ask. Yes airplane disintegrating into dust!
Is that why they did not got out the other side?


Now please tell me how a plane penetrated (what was it like 8) steel reinforced concrete walls of the pentagon?

No one can seem to tell me how this is possible. Can you? I mean the WTC were steel glass and sheet-rock yet the airplane disintegrated into dust (more or less) But the plane at the pentagon was what??????? a super plane?

Thank you for the video but it only shows how the plane at the pentagon must of not been a plane.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Alfie, you and a few others on here literally frustrated me to such an extent that I have stopped checking 9/11 forum threads on this site. Why you continue to ask the exact same questions time after time and pretend that you haven't had them answered with complete and logical answers backed up with eyewitness accounts, professional insight, and video upon video upon video, I will never know. Are there really people who wake up every single day and ask "why is it so bright outside, what is that big yellow ball in the sky?" As I have said before, the only explanation is that you are actually trying to constantly bring attention to the holes in the OS, but you will never admit that.

WTC7 is just one of those amazing firsts in a long line of firsts on that day. Unfortunately, its not the first time the American public has been forcefed a load of sh*t as an explanation to make what is obvious seem to be something miraculous that has never happened before. Google magic bullet for more on this.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar

Originally posted by KILL_DOGG
Man, common sense threads are on the rise today. S&F for you for bringing in a little truth to the truthers.

And for those talking about it falling straight down....what tends to happen to a structure when the base of said structure is compromised? If one part of the upper structure shifts, it'll take the rest down with it; not crumble or topple.


Feel free to show us a video of another building falling flat in its footprint, with no resistance, and without explosives. Or can you?


Exactly. I can't believe how sad situation is and how many people just don't get it.

Well, if the OP is common sense? I'll have no part of it.


But yes indeed, why don't you truthers show us a building that has fallen just like building 7 WITHOUT demolition assistance of some kind? I don't want to hear any excuses either because that's all they are.. excuses.

Show us!



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
By the way, where are the mods on this thread. I didn't know it was ok to title a thread PROOF POSITIVE and provide nothing but ridiculous conjecture. I move that the title of this thread should be, "My opinion on blah blah blah with no proof nor any possibility of using logical reasoning", it would be infinitely more appropriate.



new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join