Good video on Building 7

reply to post by 4hero


Strange how I never heard one single Truther on ATS or even sooper smrt Richard Gage and his fellow justice team members ever bother to mention or suspect subpaar fireproofing of the WTC as a likely cause.

Here is what Bill Manning said:

The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.

(from the "Selling Out the Investigation" article I linked earlier. )

You want a REAL conspiracy? Here you go. THIS should be on the front page of A&Efor9/11T. But it is strangely absent. Pssh. Crappy fireproofing causing WTC destruction and the PA, engineers, and builders covering it up and hiding it? Naw, that is too stupid. Let's focus more on special explosives and magical thermites and missiles.

Originally posted by 4hero
Yo shill tl:dr

Tired of you shills now, cannot be bothered to read your junk anymore I'm only interested in honest members now... You had your chance.

THAT'S the Truther response I was waiting for!

Right on schedual.



Hows the sand in the ear canals?

"Embrace Ignorance".

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by 4hero
Yo shill tl:dr

Tired of you shills now, cannot be bothered to read your junk anymore I'm only interested in honest members now... You had your chance.

THAT'S the Truther response I was waiting for!

Right on schedual.



Hows the sand in the ear canals?

"Embrace Ignorance".

edit on 5/15/2012 by GenRadek because: editing stuff

Hahaha! You lot are easy to predict! Don't worry, I shan't be stopping for you, but will just ignore anything you post in future because it is totally dishonest.

I'm no truther, whatever one of those is, but one thing you can say about people searching for the truth is that we are honest people looking for the real story, not some BS story that you lot cling onto.

If you want to debate like a real man then please answer this one question, one i've asked all your buddies numerous times but none have had the answers..

Why do you think building 7 was not a controlled demolition?

Also, can you explain this next piece of info....

April 29th, 2004, behind closed doors Bush and Cheney appear together before the 9/11 commission for 3 hours, and are not placed under oath, the testimony is not recorded, and the Commissions notes are subject to White House censorship.

I bet you can't! Does that not make you suspicious?

Originally posted by 4hero

Hahaha! You lot are easy to predict! Don't worry, I shan't be stopping for you, but will just ignore anything you post in future because it is totally dishonest.

First you complain that I allegedly do not bring anything to the conversation. I link you to THREE articles that answer all of your questions, and you ignore them. Typical truther. You say you are not, but, after interacting with "truthers" for the last 5-6 years, you sure do have all the trademarks of one.

I'm no truther, whatever one of those is, but one thing you can say about people searching for the truth is that we are honest people looking for the real story, not some BS story that you lot cling onto.

You are honestly looking for the truth? You? You sure could have fooled me. But you know what? Prove it. Click on the three links if you are man enough, or honest enough. You wanted answers, I supplied three. Now the honest thing to do is to look at your answers, rather than acting like an ignorant child, and running away with your fingers in you ears. How about actually showing me where the BS is. As far as I can tell, you havent done any research outside of the garbage truther sites.

If you want to debate like a real man then please answer this one question, one i've asked all your buddies numerous times but none have had the answers..

Why do you think building 7 was not a controlled demolition?

I don't think, I know it is not, and we all have answered why. It is just too bad you either A) Refuse to listen, B) ignore the answer every time or C) never bother to do any actual discussion outside of personal insults and snide comments. Now, as to your question, it is not because it has no hallmarks of a demolition. Nothing controlled about it considering it damaged and destroyed a couple of neighboring buildings. No explosions characteristic of demolitions. Severe damage obvious to firefighters, and massive fires.

Also, can you explain this next piece of info....

April 29th, 2004, behind closed doors Bush and Cheney appear together before the 9/11 commission for 3 hours, and are not placed under oath, the testimony is not recorded, and the Commissions notes are subject to White House censorship.

I bet you can't! Does that not make you suspicious?

Irrelevant. This is about WTC7

Originally posted by GenRadek

First you complain that I allegedly do not bring anything to the conversation. I link you to THREE articles that answer all of your questions, and you ignore them. Typical truther.

No typical OSer who can't answer any questions themselves and have to always appeal to an authority.

How do you know those articles are accurate? Because they say want you want to hear?

Answer this, how did WTC7 land mostly in its own footprint if it wasn't a controlled implosion demolition? And don't try to claim it didn't because there is proof. No negatives, how did the outer walls land on top of the rest of the collapsed building from an uncontrolled collapse? Please explain the physics behind that, without linking to an article...




Outer walls do not fall inwards to land on top of the rest of the collapsed building from an uncontrolled collapse.

reply to post by ANOK


Yes, they can.

(This is where you say they can't but refuse to provide reasons for your thinking that. Repeat to fade.)

reply to post by ANOK


Hey Anok. Still thinking about my simple, but oh so relevant physics question? Or did you give up?

Just wondering, where do you expect the walls to fall in an "uncontrolled" demolition, and why?

reply to post by ANOK


Hey man just forget them, Im starting to think that there are only two type of people on the 9/11 forums. People who trust their own eyes and the laws of physics and have done unbiased research and people who will use childish tactics to lie themselves into a false sense of security. I appreciate your thought provoking and informative posts brother.

reply to post by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup


I agree. ANOK should ignore any question he does not like or does not know the answer to. Because the people asking those question are evil. The important thing is not to get the correct answers to questions, but it is to discredit the people asking them.

reply to post by -PLB-


For once, you've said something right. The people here who back the OS all day, every day, regardless of substance, are evil. They are 'the people of the lie', and will one day pay for their deeds. May God help them.

reply to post by dillweed


Yep, it is not the message that is important, but the messenger. This is a well known ancient wisdom.

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
reply to post by ANOK

 

Hey man just forget them, Im starting to think that there are only two type of people on the 9/11 forums. People who trust their own eyes and the laws of physics and have done unbiased research and people who will use childish tactics to lie themselves into a false sense of security. I appreciate your thought provoking and informative posts brother.

I don't think the people discrediting the 'truthers' are actually putting themselves into a false sense of security. Building 7 is so obvious to anyone who can just look and make up their own minds, as you rightly say.

Just look at their post counts, that's a lot of time to invest into a conspiracy site. Think about. They are shills, they use the same tactics over any subject- could be 9/11 or online poker, they will discredit whoever offers a genuine question to the official account, they will use the words 'ridiculous', 'absurd', 'no evidence' 'lies', they will turn an argument literally upside down in a way that derails the thread.

Best ignoring them, easier said than done though

MY doubts were first raised when I watched them collapse Vertically..steel framed buildings never have..and never will fall like that..whilst being only heated by a bit of paraffin plane fuel,

Bazzerd

reply to post by Wonderer2012
If we ignore them, then they will have won. That, is unacceptable. Because what they do here is criminal, I want the world to see them for what they are. There's not ONE poster here who passes the 'smell' test, and yet they are treated as though they are legit. This, is what's wrong with this site, because they promote ignorance.