My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!

Originally posted by holywar666
Reason for thinking WTC 7 was a controlled Demolition?

Because the OKC Building went down the same exact way:

Surely an airplane hit the OKC Building otherwise it would not have gone down like the WTC towers.

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath


So you think an obvious cd intiated at the base with loud explosions is "like the WTC towers" where the collapses started from high plane impact points ? Seriously ?

Instead of commenting on irrelevant videos how about presenting your evidence that the NIST WTC 7 model was defective.

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath


Just curious, does that building collapse into its own footprint, according to your definition? (i already gave up on you posting a shred of evidence for your NIST is wrong claim).

Originally posted by -PLB-
the internal collapse of WTC 7 started about 7 seconds before global collapse

Why do you (and your Deception Cult) continue harping on this very unimportant fact? Controlled demolitions, especially for buildings this size, are all different. It all depends on the structure of the building. This is why CD-teams first study the building so they can figure out in what sequence to take the columns out. So they took out the inner core beams first and we saw the penthouse collapse first. Look at videos of other large building being CD'd... many times the charges start going off and there is an EVEN LONGER DELAY between sections collapsing. None of this changes the fact that all four sides went down simultaneously and that the material was being taken out from the bottom as is the case with EVERY CD of this size. The building's facade went down as a WHOLE there was NO PANCAKING FROM THE TOP!! What sort of hallucinatory drugs prevents a person from seeing this?

So AGAIN, WHAT EXACTLY DOES THIS TRIVIAL POINT PROVE? All it proves is that the inner columns for this particular building needed to be taken out first in order to ensure that the outer walls collapsed inwards upon itself as it was falling, so the visible collapse started with the Penthouse.

Originally posted by -PLB-
a shred of evidence

And what is with this psychobabble hyperbole? There isn't a SHRED OF EVIDENCE FOR THE OS! I mean, one would think that a rational person would say, "gee, there are SO MANY questions, maybe there's SOMETHING wrong with the OS".... "rational" is the missing ingredient with the OS camp, among a few others.... But NO, you people will defend the official crap NO MATTER HOW ABSURD.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
So AGAIN, WHAT EXACTLY DOES THIS TRIVIAL POINT PROVE?

It proves that only when you cut out most of the WTC7 collapse video, you get something similar to a traditional CD. When you show the whole video, it no longer looks like a traditional CD at all.

The relevance of this is that the main, and as far as I know only, argument from truthers is "It looks like CD so it is CD". This argument is even flawed if the WTC collapse actually did exactly match a traditional CD. But it is even more flawed when it turns out that the WTC collapse did not match a traditional CD at all. I can understand that you do not like me pointing this fact out, as it is a direct attack on you belief. The caps in your post make it clear that you feel threatened by it, and you should. It kind of debunks the main argument why you believe in CD.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
And what is with this psychobabble hyperbole? There isn't a SHRED OF EVIDENCE FOR THE OS! I mean, one would think that a rational person would say, "gee, there are SO MANY questions, maybe there's SOMETHING wrong with the OS".... "rational" is the missing ingredient with the OS camp, among a few others.... But NO, you people will defend the official crap NO MATTER HOW ABSURD.

Besides that this is of course a lie (there is evidence for the OS, you just ignore it), it is also a fallacy. Even if you were right, and there is no evidence for the OS, it does not mean that your theory also requires no evidence. That is just absurd. You reject the OS because in your opinion it lacks evidence, but then you embrace an alternative theory with an equal lack of evidence. That is completely irrational.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Nathan-D

 

WHY?:

Here are some of my reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition.

WHY (ask yourself, please) --- WHY didn't WTC7 fail within minutes of WTC1 or WTC2?

"IF" (as you posit) it was a "controlled demolition"?


In case the 'point' I am making is not yet clear.....there are many 'CT' who believe that WTC1 and WTC2 were also "controlled demolition". SO.....this brings us back to "why"? As in...."why" the huge delay?

Answer, please.

(PS...I already know the reality and thus, the answer. Just want to see if any logic engages).

You are asking questions people cannot precisely answer, but regardless of these questions it does not explain how the building failed so equally.

You have asked this answer many times over in many threads, and you have had many answers, yet you continue to answer this question, perhaps to deflect the thread away from its core purpose?

I'm sure it would have looked even more like a controlled demolition if they all went down close together. By leaving WTC7 longer before bringing it down it meant they could play on the fire theory more.

No fire burnt that hot to bring WTC7 down, and no debris did enough damage to bring it down. No building has ever collapsed like this with such minimal damage. Even the fire has been hailed by many as CGI.

There is every reason to conclude foul play and very little to convince anyone that it came down due to damage.

You only have to look at the Marriott Hotel, that was crushed by being so close to the towers when they collapsed, and guess what, it was still standing, even with half of it missing!

I don't think there is any argument that can prove this wasn't a controlled demolition.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
Im not sure if I should be angry or sick by the level of ignorance some of the posters here demonstrate

Neither dude. They do this on purpose because they get paid to do it. No matter what evidence is presented to them they only know one song and dance. And that is to protect the perps.

Ah yes, the "armies of sinister secret agents" excuse again. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "evidence" you're quoting having been debunked years ago and it has abolutely nothing to do with the fact you're not posting anything we haven't seen before because you're just repeating the paranoid drivel you're getting off those damned fool conspiracy websites. Nope nope nope noone is taking you seriously because of the armies of sinister secret agents. Of course.

I said it before and I'll say it again- if you can't even get your conspiracy claims past a bunch of nobodies like us then how do you expect to fare in these independent investigations you keep saying we need to have?

Why do you keep saying things have been 'debunked'? Nothing has been debunked because it cant be. Maybe you have debunked it in your mind, but that carries no weight, just like your debunking statement.

Why are you spending so much time on 9/11 threads if everything has been 'debunked', according to you?

Paid shills are no secret agents, they are just idiots who are not capable of getting a proper job, and whose brains are so malleable that they will do as they are told, to the point that they believe their own BS.

The conspiracy claims are way past you, because you have nothing tangible to debunk the extensive research done by many people that know they are being lied to.

Originally posted by 4hero
You are asking questions people cannot precisely answer, but regardless of these questions it does not explain how the building failed so equally.

Correct, that is explained in the NIST report instead. Which is hand waved away by truthers for no good reason as far as I can tell. MI5edtoDeath claims to have a reason but when asked to provide evidence for his assertions he either diverts the subject or just does not reply. I haven't seen any good arguments yet from anyone in the truther camp why the NIST report isn't sufficient.

I'm sure it would have looked even more like a controlled demolition if they all went down close together. By leaving WTC7 longer before bringing it down it meant they could play on the fire theory more.

No fire burnt that hot to bring WTC7 down, and no debris did enough damage to bring it down. No building has ever collapsed like this with such minimal damage. Even the fire has been hailed by many as CGI.

How do you know this? Care to share your source? What method did they use to asses the damage? What were their conclusions and why?

Or.. noooo, you are not making baseless assertions are you?

There is every reason to conclude foul play and very little to convince anyone that it came down due to damage.

Personal incredulity and ignorance is not a good reason.

You only have to look at the Marriott Hotel, that was crushed by being so close to the towers when they collapsed, and guess what, it was still standing, even with half of it missing!

I don't think there is any argument that can prove this wasn't a controlled demolition.

With a mind set in stone like yours, it is indeed unlikely you can get convinced, no matter what evidence.

I am actually very open to evidence. You can for example show me videos of charges going off. You can show me evidence of residue of the demolition charges. Stuff like that. You know, real evidence.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath

 

Just curious, does that building collapse into its own footprint, according to your definition? (i already gave up on you posting a shred of evidence for your NIST is wrong claim).

Just curious can you provide your definition of "collapsing on its own footprint"? Perhaps your definition is what is causing you the confusion in your mind?

Don't worry about me attending to your demands. I will post my opinion when I wish and not when you demand it.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by 4hero
You are asking questions people cannot precisely answer, but regardless of these questions it does not explain how the building failed so equally.

Correct, that is explained in the NIST report instead. Which is hand waved away by truthers for no good reason as far as I can tell. MI5edtoDeath claims to have a reason but when asked to provide evidence for his assertions he either diverts the subject or just does not reply. I haven't seen any good arguments yet from anyone in the truther camp why the NIST report isn't sufficient.

I'm sure it would have looked even more like a controlled demolition if they all went down close together. By leaving WTC7 longer before bringing it down it meant they could play on the fire theory more.

No fire burnt that hot to bring WTC7 down, and no debris did enough damage to bring it down. No building has ever collapsed like this with such minimal damage. Even the fire has been hailed by many as CGI.

How do you know this? Care to share your source? What method did they use to asses the damage? What were their conclusions and why?

Or.. noooo, you are not making baseless assertions are you?

There is every reason to conclude foul play and very little to convince anyone that it came down due to damage.

Personal incredulity and ignorance is not a good reason.

You only have to look at the Marriott Hotel, that was crushed by being so close to the towers when they collapsed, and guess what, it was still standing, even with half of it missing!

I don't think there is any argument that can prove this wasn't a controlled demolition.

With a mind set in stone like yours, it is indeed unlikely you can get convinced, no matter what evidence.

I am actually very open to evidence. You can for example show me videos of charges going off. You can show me evidence of residue of the demolition charges. Stuff like that. You know, real evidence.

edit on 13-5-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

Who are this 'truther camp' you speak of? Is that some bizarre category you label people with? I thought it was a term invented by shills to try and categorise and discredit people who do not believe the OS BS!?!

You are the OS upholder, dontcha think the onus is on you lot to prove this was not an inside job?

NIST is fairytale physics, and not a good source to go from, hence why people want a PROPER independent investigation.

There is nothing you can bring to the table to prove this want an inside job. The day you do, is the day I stop doing research into this matter. Please do post something real to convince me to believe the OS.....

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath


Ah, you like to play disingenuous games instead of honestly answering the questions you are asked.

Sure, I can give you a definition. 99% of all rubble falls inside the footprint. Note that I just made this up. It is not "my" definition, just "a" definition, as I personally never use the term, so don't have a personal definition.

Your turn.

reply to post by -PLB-


BTW, you forgot to provide any tangible argument as to why WTC7 fell so easily with minimal damage, and the Marriott Hotel still stood after immense damage?!

You conveniently gave a poor remark to that question, do please comment on this with some concise explanation.
I doubt you will though, because you know what I'm getting at, and you know I'm right.

Originally posted by 4hero
Who are this 'truther camp' you speak of? Is that some bizarre category you label people with? I thought it was a term invented by shills to try and categorise and discredit people who do not believe the OS BS!?!

You are the OS upholder, dontcha think the onus is on you lot to prove this was not an inside job?

NIST is fairytale physics, and not a good source to go from, hence why people want a PROPER independent investigation.

There is nothing you can bring to the table to prove this want an inside job. The day you do, is the day I stop doing research into this matter. Please do post something real to convince me to believe the OS.....

Right, so it is my task to prove your crazy theories wrong. Well lets see. I (and pretty much the rest of the world) just don't care what crazy theory you believe in. So no thanks.

If you really think that this is how it works, then I will play. Prove my theory that invisible leprechauns from another dimension did take down those buildings wrong. See how ridiculous this is? The burden of proof is always with the person making claims. Not the other way around. This is just so... well... trutherish.

And there it is again. The baseless assertion that NIST is fairytale physics. What did you think? When I repeat my baseless assertion enough times it becomes true? That isn't so. You have to provide arguments (evidence, maths, physics, models etc) to do that. Just saying (or typing) something out loud does not make it true.

Originally posted by 4hero
BTW, you forgot to provide any tangible argument as to why WTC7 fell so easily with minimal damage, and the Marriott Hotel still stood after immense damage?!

You conveniently gave a poor remark to that question, do please comment on this with some concise explanation.
I doubt you will though, because you know what I'm getting at, and you know I'm right.

In the real world, (outside Youtube videos and conspiracy forums) there is a report by NIST which in extreme detail explains it. Hand waving reality away does not really make it go away.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath

 

Ah, you like to play disingenuous games instead of honestly answering the questions you are asked.

Sure, I can give you a definition. 99% of all rubble falls inside the footprint. Note that I just made this up. It is not "my" definition, just "a" definition, as I personally never use the term, so don't have a personal definition.

Your turn.

Stop messing around and get to the point of providing your definition of "collapsing on its foot print". It is a very important matter for you so let us examine what you mean.

It is not good enough giving "a" definition, I want a definition we can pin your name to from which we can move forward from.

Stop being coy and underhanded and tell the truth.

BTW, please clarify what you think is the meaning of "collapsing on its foot print" - which is motion, compared to a pile of rubble - which is static? You seem not only confused about definitions but also states of motion

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
Stop messing around and get to the point of providing your definition of "collapsing on its foot print". It is a very important matter for you so let us examine what you mean.

You are strange. I nowhere use the term, so if I don't use the term I automatically don't mean anything with it. You, and other truthers, do use the term. I asked you to define the term pages ago. You refuse and play this silly game.

It is not good enough giving "a" definition, I want a definition we can pin your name to from which we can move forward from.

No, that is what i want, as I am not using the term, but you are.

Stop being coy and underhanded and tell the truth.

Good advice for yourself.

BTW, please clarify what you think is the meaning of "collapsing on its foot print" - which is motion, compared to a pile of rubble - which is static? You seem not only confused about definitions but also states of motion

You tell me. I have no clue what truthers mean when they talk about "collapse in its foot print". I don't use the term so I don't have a definition for it.

Why are you playing this disingenuous and childish game when I ask a very simple question?

reply to post by -PLB-

You are strange. I nowhere use the term, so if I don't use the term I automatically don't mean anything with it. You, and other truthers, do use the term. I asked you to define the term pages ago. You refuse and play this silly game.

I don't mean to be strange and I am not. It is just your perceptions that makes you think ordinary people are strange. Why can't you stick to the issue at hand and answer my question? Your wriggling is too much.

No, that is what i want, as I am not using the term, but you are.

You gave a definition for "collapsing on its own foot print" then proceeded to disassociate yourself from it. What we need is your definition in order for me to clarify matters for you. You appear to be confused about the difference between a state of motion and something being static.

You tell me. I have no clue what truthers mean when they talk about "collapse in its foot print". I don't use the term so I don't have a definition for it.

You are the one who is constantly posing questions yet some how you always miss the responses. You constantly refer to your "difficult questions" that for some reason you perceive other people as having trouble attending them even though they try their best and actually do.

You need to provide a clear definition of what you think the term "collapse in its foot print" means even if do not use it as you claim.

Why are you playing this disingenuous and childish game when I ask a very simple question?

I think you are being paranoid and letting your perceptions distort reality. Your "difficult questions" are entirely reliant on the specificity of all kinds of details to which you give equal weight; consequently, your definition will allow me to give you an accurate response that is clear to you.

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath


This is getting weirder and weirder. I clearly state that I do not use the term, and do not have a definition for it, and still you keep asking me to define the term.

What do you want me to do? Make up a definition? Try and read this slowly:

I do not have a definition for the term, as I don't use it.

Read it again a couple of times, let it sink in, and try to understand what it means.

As for "specific kinds of details", you are hilarious. Asking for (any) evidence to support a certain claim is called "specific kinds of details". Right.

It is people like you who make debating with truthers worthwhile

ps. I am expecting another truther to step in any moment now to tell you how evil I am, and you will agree to that and refrain from answering my simply question what you mean by "falling in its own footprint".