WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

Originally posted by 4hero

Not really if you behave like one, I dont think you actually understand ad hominen correctly.

So you're claiming that you know - and MI5 knows - that I'm a perpetrator of crimes related to 9/11. And that therefore it's okay to call me one?

Do you see how insane that is?

Originally posted by 4hero
I love how the shills think the mods are on their side, maybe some but not all.

Why are the shills always crying about terms and conditions when they dont like a reply, people are just being honest, and you I dont think there is a rule against honesty?!

If anythingt the shills are lucky they are not banned with some of their insults. they're obviously just not capable of debating intelligently, but after all, they're shills, so they're not here to debate intelligently, they're here to sell a lie, and try to make people back off.

You'd think the shills would try and be more discreet! They are so easily spotted, if I was their employer I would have fired them by now!

You used shill 5 times in one post without once referencing any details of 9/11 or making any form of intelligent argument. Who are you, and what's your purpose here?

Does this fire look localized to you?

Here

Originally posted by samkent
Does this fire look localized to you?

Here

Do you have the source of that image? I found the originals some time ago, and they're great for use, but this one has a firefighter photoshopped in.

Edit: Scratch that, it may not be photoshopped.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by 4hero
Shills, photshopped images are not evidence of anything.

Well, apparently I was wrong. I'm trying to find the original, but the picture comes from a still taken by a member here:

the911forum.freeforums.org...

from this video here:

Video

What is unrevokably pertinent to me in all of this, looking at both sides of this topic from a neutral as much as I possibly can ? Is the simple observation of deception and unanswered questions and gaping holes that do exist
that the official story and most definetly leaves us with.

In comparison to the quite possible yet speculative answers that do explain those deceptions, answers the questions and fills the holes perfectly. It's easy to see the truthers are on the right track.

Here's a decent picture of the smoke-from-fire of WTC 7:

Good Ole dave can you prove to us that some sort of explosive wasn't in WTC 7?

I posted the reporter saying that controlled demolition was an option, and there are multiple witnesses talking of explosions including firefighters. In a real investigation this would have been tested for. Although I honestly think you are paid to belittle truthers, and evidence doesn't matter to you (who the hell would just want to post in the 911 forums all the dam time?)

Anyone selling lies about 9/11 (shills) are perps. Anyone associated with the lies and working to sell a lie are naturally perps.

Barry Jennings on the otherhand heard explosions in WTC7, it's no wonder it collapsed with explosions going off.

There was no reason for it to collapse, but it did, due to explosives being planted inside WTC7.

This is why the BBC got wind of it coming down from Mayor Rudy Giuliani, before it actually had. Unfortunately for them they released that info a little too early, and blew their cover. Even if they didnt blow their cover, it's still obvious from the video, physics, and eye witnesses that this was a controlled demolition.

So what I have heard from the shills on this thread so far is that there was a lot of smoke, and the fires were burning uncontrolled. That doesn't really make an argument for why the building came down at near free fall speed! I notice that on the 9/11 threads that whenever the shills don't have an out, they resort to insults and off topic comments.

When I came to ATS I was a firm believer in the truther perspective, after witnessing the type of behavior from the resident shills I am even more convinced that there is a massive effort to keep this story from bubbling to the surface of the mainstream consciousness.

That effort will fail, truth alway's finds a way to the surface!

Smoke alone does not bring a building down either!

Explosions create smoke, and explosions bring down buildings.

Originally posted by jaws1975
So what I have heard from the shills on this thread so far is that there was a lot of smoke, and the fires were burning uncontrolled. That doesn't really make an argument for why the building came down at near free fall speed! I notice that on the 9/11 threads that whenever the shills don't have an out, they resort to insults and off topic comments.

When I came to ATS I was a firm believer in the truther perspective, after witnessing the type of behavior from the resident shills I am even more convinced that there is a massive effort to keep this story from bubbling to the surface of the mainstream consciousness.

That effort will fail, truth alway's finds a way to the surface!

Thanks, Jaws. There is a massive effort to keep the lie in place, but the team of lightweights they employ here have become a joke! They grow weaker by the day.

Originally posted by Varemia
Here's a decent picture of the smoke-from-fire of WTC 7:

edit on 24-5-2012 by Varemia because: Resized the image

Clearly you know nothing about wind shear.

Here is a simple equation structural engineers use for load calculations

The wind shear can be expressed as

v / vo = (h / ho)α (1)

where

v = the velocity at height h (m/s)

vo = the velocity at height ho (m/s)

α = the wind shear exponent


Wind shear is a relative measurement with open water having an exponent of 0.1 and in certain conditions it can kick off a hurricane.

The wind shear exponent of a skyscraper is 0.25

So what do you think the wind shear is going to do around WTC 7 when the once larger WTC1 and 2 are gone?

It is going to suck up all the smoke and dust in the area with the enormous negative pressure. The wind and dust is going to go up against WTC 7's facade and over. A micro-climate.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave

While I do find your avatar quite humorous and a lot of your points valid. I fail to understand your obvious unreasonable moments tho few and far between, something to wonder about at the very least.
Spell check

Originally posted by mayabong
Good Ole dave can you prove to us that some sort of explosive wasn't in WTC 7?

That's an illogical point of argument because it's like my asking you to prove WTC 7 wasn't destroyed by leprechauns- it falsely presents an unproven and unprovable assertion as being factual, and it hides behind the logical fallacy that if the unprovable assertion can't be disproved, it somehow means the assertion has been proved by proxy. This isn't proving anything- it's simply circular logic in that you're restating the original claim in different terms in order to "prove" itself. The proof is in the pudding- when I state there were no explosive flashes in WTC 7 when it collapsed, the truthers counter that these secret agents who secretly rigged the building with secret demolitions without anyone noticing used secret military technology that allowed the secret explosives to go off secretly without being detected. You're telling me you honestly don't see how disingenuous that is?

I myself am relying upon eyewitness accounts like Deputy fire chief Peter Hayden, who commented on what the fires were doing to WTC 7:

"Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

We have not only a firefighter but a firefighter officer standing right there at WTC 7 and he's saying the fires were causing massive structural damage to the point where they knew the building was going to collapse. Plus, notably, not a single one of any of these "firefighters that heard explosions" take these "secret controlled demolitions" claims seriously or else Alex Jones and Dylan Avery would be interviewing them left, right, up, and down. The question isn't up to me to "prove that secret explosives weren't in WTC 7". It's up to YOU to prove eyewitnesses like deputy chief Hayden are lying when they say it was the fires that brought the building down.

Originally posted by 4hero
This is why the BBC got wind of it coming down from Mayor Rudy Giuliani, before it actually had. Unfortunately for them they released that info a little too early, and blew their cover. Even if they didnt blow their cover, it's still obvious from the video, physics, and eye witnesses that this was a controlled demolition.

So now the BBC is in on the sinister secret plot to take over the world. It's now official- there literally is not a single person on the face of the Earth who isn't in on the sinister secret plot to take over the world except for 4hero.