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

page: 6
46
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

lol, I don't even know what a shill is. It just shows how these silly “debunkers” try anything to get out of admitting that they're wrong. Because they can't debunk reality they come up with conspiracy theories that somebody is actually paying me to point out what is available for anybody to see for free.

I think they might go away soon.


I'm surprised you dont know what a shill is...
en.wikipedia.org...

Some OS'ers are 'debunkers' the majority are paid shills...

They come and go together, in waves, like people do when they're on a work shift, and they only post in 9/11.
edit on 24-5-2012 by 4hero because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 24 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
I find it crazy that the majority are willing to accept,blindly, that 392tons(2 jetliners + fuel) can easily pulverize 1,200,000tons (3 towers).

And in regards to building 7 ,there was no plane impact to blow-off the fire proofing on the steel columns/beams and trusses. So the question is how can fire weaken steel when(in the past) there have been many fires (all day and night fires) with steel structures in Spain and China... and none dropped down on its footprint?. Why would building 7 be any different? Was there a new voodoo-fire we thought never new existed, and suddenly on 911 it appeared to reek havoc in the big apple?



I find it odd people would rather believe a report or an article or some eyewitness account on tv/youtube from a supposed certified professional, than using your own dam logic. Why some choose to ignore there own god given gift of common sense is beyond me.

So ,I'll state it again, how is it possible that : 392tons of aluminum and fuel can pulverize,not 2,but 3 towers with a combined weight of 1,200,000tons of mild steel and reinforced concrete.... All on one days work? Really


AND there was reinforced concrete in the WTC towers. It was used within the steel tubed-cores. Which is another point why the pancake theory is bunk. For the pancake theory to work in a steel structures an actual demolition crew would have to weaken every floor . But what about the core? You see if the pancake theory really did happen (do to the plane impact off course) then the only thing standing ,after the outer steel skin and slabs plummeted down, the core should have been standing upright. But no, everything went down,as if steel and concrete weren't really used to building these iconic structures.


My last point is , why most of us have never really asked ourselves :Who really benefited from 911? Was it the supposed muslim terrorists? Or was it another terrorist group that chances are we really don't consider them actual terrorist. Honestly ask yourself. If your is Muslims or Alqaeda or another islamic group you are completely mislead and ill informed of what is really happening to middle eastern people,the have gained nothing out of 911.

The Arab world is worse off now than before 911. Before 911 there were less than 10 US military bases in the middle east. Now,, 43 bases.

I ask you to look at these numbers above and think how is it possible. How is it possible.


Good day



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by 4hero
 


Anybody know what Giuliani was doing in London on 7/7 ?

Paste this URL into the wayback machine

timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1685159,00.html

The Wayback Machine


Mr Giuliani was in the City as the Underground system was evacuated and roads were closed in a rush of emergency vehicles and evacuations. A bomb on a Tube train between nearby Aldgate and Moorgate killed seven people and injured dozens. "As we were walking through and driving through the streets of the city, it was remarkable how the people of London responded calmly and bravely," said Mr Giuliani.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero
I find it highly amusing how much the shills exaggerate! They also love the word sinister! How on earth do they expect anyone to take them seriously when they keep saying the same child like things continuously!?!

Oh, they also say there were no explosions...



Who is it exactly that's saying "there were no explosions"? Everyone from journalists to the people working in the buildings to firefighters to the people sitting at home watching it on TV heard explosions. I personally talked to someone who worked in the towers at the time of the attack and she heard explosions. It's the fake accusation that the explosions were actually explosives we take exception to when there are five thousand more rational explanations for them.

This is what's called a "strawman argument"- you make up a false claim against your opponents and then attack the claim to give yourself false credibility. Do you still beat your wife, 4hero?



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Who is it exactly that's saying "there were no explosions"? Everyone from journalists to the people working in the buildings to firefighters to the people sitting at home watching it on TV heard explosions. I personally talked to someone who worked in the towers at the time of the attack and she heard explosions. It's the fake accusation that the explosions were actually explosives we take exception to when there are five thousand more rational explanations for them.

This is what's called a "strawman argument"- you make up a false claim against your opponents and then attack the claim to give yourself false credibility. Do you still beat your wife, 4hero?



Hahaha, the shills come out with some classic stuff! Honestly, they really have no idea how stupid their comments are.


Quite a few shills have said there were no explosions, and to say there are 5000 reasons other than explosives is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read in a 9/11 thread! Hahaha! Let me just go to the toilet before I pee myself with laughter!


Of course they were explosives, there is nothing in those buildings that could have caused the explosive damage in the basement, caused the siesmic recordings (even before any 'impact') and it is these explosives that brought the buildings down. They were spaced out to not seem so obvious.

As for wife beating, for one, what has that got to do with this thread? And secondly, I'm female! Hahahahahaha!
edit on 24-5-2012 by 4hero because: added quotes back in.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by maxella1

lol, I don't even know what a shill is. It just shows how these silly “debunkers” try anything to get out of admitting that they're wrong. Because they can't debunk reality they come up with conspiracy theories that somebody is actually paying me to point out what is available for anybody to see for free.

I think they might go away soon.


I'm surprised you dont know what a shill is...
en.wikipedia.org...

Some OS'ers are 'debunkers' the majority are paid shills...

They come and go together, in waves, like people do when they're on a work shift, and they only post in 9/11.
edit on 24-5-2012 by 4hero because: (no reason given)


lol, must be a stressful job. I kinda feel bad for them.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
I find it crazy that the majority are willing to accept,blindly, that 392tons(2 jetliners + fuel) can easily pulverize 1,200,000tons (3 towers).

And in regards to building 7 ,there was no plane impact to blow-off the fire proofing on the steel columns/beams and trusses. So the question is how can fire weaken steel when(in the past) there have been many fires (all day and night fires) with steel structures in Spain and China... and none dropped down on its footprint?. Why would building 7 be any different? Was there a new voodoo-fire we thought never new existed, and suddenly on 911 it appeared to reek havoc in the big apple?


That actually brings up an interesting issue. Dr James Quintiere is/was a fire expert at NIST and he conducted his own independent research into the collapse of the buildings, and he theorizes the buildings never had adequate fireproofing to begin with. This is important to consider because this implies the fire codes in NYC are horribly inadequate, meaning that instead of griping how rare it is, you should be griping about how this might be a tragedy that's waiting to happen again in some other skyscraper under the right set of circumstances.

Of course, the truthers don't care about his research or how troubling his findings are. It's not fashionably sinister sounding enough for their tastes. Quintiere should have said it was the work of the Jews, or something.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by 4hero
 



As for wife beating, for one, what has that got to do with this thread? And secondly, I'm female! Hahahahahaha!


Hold on, let me check in the training manual



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero
Hahaha, the shills come out with some classic stuff! Honestly, they really have no idea how stupid their comments are.


Quite a few shills have said there were no explosions, and to say there are 5000 reasons other than explosives is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read in a 9/11 thread! Hahaha! Let me just go to the toilet before I pee myself with laughter!


All right, time to put up or shut up- copy and paste one of these supposed "quite a few shills" posting there were no explosions, as I literally haven't seen a single person make that claim here. I myself talked to a woman who worked in the south tower at the time of the attack and she said herself it sounded like giant boulders were crashing and banging down the emergency stairs from above so claiming "there were no explosions" is as outrageous as claiming there were no fires.

Please post an example or else admit you're just making stuff up.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I certainly wont be shutting up for you! As for trying to find the precise threads where a shills have said no real explosions, I have none bookmarked, so that would be like looking for a needle in a haystack at present because there are so many threads. But I'll give you a clue if you want to go and search for yourself, they are threads that make references to jet fuel. Which ones I cannot remember off the top of my head, I just remember shills claiming jet fuel was the cause of certain incidents. When I say no explosions, I mean real explosions i'm not referring the 'impacts' I'm on about pre-explosions and secondary explosions, which have been explained as being caused by jet fuel or generators etc by shills.

I'll post this again for you...



Maxella is bang on the money with this link: vigilantcitizen.com...

You have many of these traits!



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
There are many smoking guns to make an educated guess that 9-11 was an inside job:

NYC
1)two modest jets bringing down to huge towers constructed from steel and concrete.
2)wtc7 was far away from wtc1 and wtc2
3)everything came straight down rather than at any tilt
4)explosions were heard from many people

Washington, DC
5)an airplane managing to fly so fast and and so low into the pentagon that defies logic.
6)an airplane managing to penetrate steel reinforced concrete "bunker-like" wall
7)no footage was shown of what struck the pentagon
8)all video footage from nearby business was confiscated by government agents

Consequences
9)two wars were immediately started on muslim countries
10)the supposed perpetrators were quickly arrested and every mass media outlet was quick to jump to the same conclusions. What happened to methodic investigation, where it normally takes months if not years to piece the puzzle together?

And the biggest smoking gun of all.....DRUM ROLL......
11) $2.3 trillion dollars was announed to be missing by Donald Rumsfeld one day prior to 9-11. (9-10-2001)

Anyone with at least half a brain can correctly deduce 9-11 was a horrific inside job to take away freedoms from every american by perpetrating genocide and then conspiring to lie about everything. TSA, DHS, 2 wars, trillions wasted(bad for our debt).



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
I find it crazy that the majority are willing to accept,blindly, that 392tons(2 jetliners + fuel) can easily pulverize 1,200,000tons (3 towers).

And in regards to building 7 ,there was no plane impact to blow-off the fire proofing on the steel columns/beams and trusses. So the question is how can fire weaken steel when(in the past) there have been many fires (all day and night fires) with steel structures in Spain and China... and none dropped down on its footprint?. Why would building 7 be any different? Was there a new voodoo-fire we thought never new existed, and suddenly on 911 it appeared to reek havoc in the big apple?


That actually brings up an interesting issue. Dr James Quintiere is/was a fire expert at NIST and he conducted his own independent research into the collapse of the buildings, and he theorizes the buildings never had adequate fireproofing to begin with. This is important to consider because this implies the fire codes in NYC are horribly inadequate, meaning that instead of griping how rare it is, you should be griping about how this might be a tragedy that's waiting to happen again in some other skyscraper under the right set of circumstances.

Of course, the truthers don't care about his research or how troubling his findings are. It's not fashionably sinister sounding enough for their tastes. Quintiere should have said it was the work of the Jews, or something.



as you say Dave, he 'theorises'. And you also say he 'implies' But if you did your homework you'd know that the fireproofing was upgraded: www.911blogger.com...

Also, steel is capable of withstanding the temperatures of jet fuel, even without fire proofing. Come back once you've done some more reading.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
I find it crazy that the majority are willing to accept,blindly, that 392tons(2 jetliners + fuel) can easily pulverize 1,200,000tons (3 towers).

And in regards to building 7 ,there was no plane impact to blow-off the fire proofing on the steel columns/beams and trusses. So the question is how can fire weaken steel when(in the past) there have been many fires (all day and night fires) with steel structures in Spain and China... and none dropped down on its footprint?. Why would building 7 be any different? Was there a new voodoo-fire we thought never new existed, and suddenly on 911 it appeared to reek havoc in the big apple?


That actually brings up an interesting issue. Dr James Quintiere is/was a fire expert at NIST and he conducted his own independent research into the collapse of the buildings, and he theorizes the buildings never had adequate fireproofing to begin with. This is important to consider because this implies the fire codes in NYC are horribly inadequate, meaning that instead of griping how rare it is, you should be griping about how this might be a tragedy that's waiting to happen again in some other skyscraper under the right set of circumstances.

Of course, the truthers don't care about his research or how troubling his findings are. It's not fashionably sinister sounding enough for their tastes. Quintiere should have said it was the work of the Jews, or something.



Did you know that even the cement used in the towers was mixed with asbestos?

Now you do.

www.mymeso.org...

I can't imagine anything safer, unless it were to be some sinister plot to frisk, humiliate, and terrorize anything that moves, so that chertoff can make enough money to impress those above him. Enjoy your life here G.O.D. You and silverstein, and chertoff, are on the same level, or should I say,page.....

www.myconfinedspace.com...[edi tby]edit on 24-5-2012 by davidmann because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-5-2012 by davidmann because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-5-2012 by davidmann because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-5-2012 by davidmann because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
I find it crazy that the majority are willing to accept,blindly, that 392tons(2 jetliners + fuel) can easily pulverize 1,200,000tons (3 towers).

And in regards to building 7 ,there was no plane impact to blow-off the fire proofing on the steel columns/beams and trusses. So the question is how can fire weaken steel when(in the past) there have been many fires (all day and night fires) with steel structures in Spain and China... and none dropped down on its footprint?. Why would building 7 be any different? Was there a new voodoo-fire we thought never new existed, and suddenly on 911 it appeared to reek havoc in the big apple?


That actually brings up an interesting issue. Dr James Quintiere is/was a fire expert at NIST and he conducted his own independent research into the collapse of the buildings, and he theorizes the buildings never had adequate fireproofing to begin with. This is important to consider because this implies the fire codes in NYC are horribly inadequate, meaning that instead of griping how rare it is, you should be griping about how this might be a tragedy that's waiting to happen again in some other skyscraper under the right set of circumstances.

Of course, the truthers don't care about his research or how troubling his findings are. It's not fashionably sinister sounding enough for their tastes. Quintiere should have said it was the work of the Jews, or something.



How does one conduct an adequate independent study after the pulverization of a building? Did he do it immediately after the 911? I thought all the steel was transferred out pretty quickly . But then at the end of the day Dr. James conclusion is a theory,,, right?

I agree with you though, building and fire codes were way below par in NYC. There's nothing like south florida building code. But in the future I truly doubt any steel structure will ever go thru what these three buildings went thru.

Sorry Dave , biased subjective theories hold no weight when I decide what truly happened on 911. Theories should never trump good old logic ,no matter how troubling they mite sound. But something tells me you already knew that.


Thanks for trying to answer my question though.


All the best



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Giuliani Claims WTC Building 7 Fell "In Stages"







posted on May, 24 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

This is one of my favorite explanation of the secondary explosions inside the towers....

Spray Cans and WD40 go BOOM !! baby!


Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Cassius666
 





The Firefighters were obviously startled and surprised at the explosions. If they were a normal occurrence during a fire, you would think the firefighters would be equipped to deal with them.


This would startle me.



Think of how many spray cans there are in an office complex. Remember back in those days blow off/dust off cans had explosive propellant in them.
I'll bet WD40 would make a huge explosion. What's worse is if the temperature inside a storage cabinet (metal) gets high enought to force the cans to leak and fill the cabinet with gas. Once the flame gets in BOOM!


edit on 24-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
I find it crazy that the majority are willing to accept,blindly, that 392tons(2 jetliners + fuel) can easily pulverize 1,200,000tons (3 towers).

And in regards to building 7 ,there was no plane impact to blow-off the fire proofing on the steel columns/beams and trusses. So the question is how can fire weaken steel when(in the past) there have been many fires (all day and night fires) with steel structures in Spain and China... and none dropped down on its footprint?. Why would building 7 be any different? Was there a new voodoo-fire we thought never new existed, and suddenly on 911 it appeared to reek havoc in the big apple?


That actually brings up an interesting issue. Dr James Quintiere is/was a fire expert at NIST and he conducted his own independent research into the collapse of the buildings, and he theorizes the buildings never had adequate fireproofing to begin with. This is important to consider because this implies the fire codes in NYC are horribly inadequate, meaning that instead of griping how rare it is, you should be griping about how this might be a tragedy that's waiting to happen again in some other skyscraper under the right set of circumstances.

Of course, the truthers don't care about his research or how troubling his findings are. It's not fashionably sinister sounding enough for their tastes. Quintiere should have said it was the work of the Jews, or something.



as you say Dave, he 'theorises'. And you also say he 'implies' But if you did your homework you'd know that the fireproofing was upgraded: www.911blogger.com...

Also, steel is capable of withstanding the temperatures of jet fuel, even without fire proofing. Come back once you've done some more reading.


Even aluminum, which is much lighter(less dense) than steel, can remain relatively intact after fire. I have seen airplane crashes with a charred fuselage in plenty of video footage.

It would probably take small nuclear devices, thermite, or some form of high explosive to generate enough heat to melt steel or even to weaken it sufficiently. If it did weaken it, it would weaken it locally and cause an uneven load bearing configuration of the building, meaning parts of the building would likely sever off the rest.

No part of the original story adds up!



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by 4hero
 


That was probably the best example of a coached puppet that i ever seen.

Some key coached terms:

"I think what he was thinking"

" day one operation"

"how buildings usually collapse"


What a joke



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero

Who is it exactly that's saying "there were no explosions"? Everyone from journalists to the people working in the buildings to firefighters to the people sitting at home watching it on TV heard explosions. I personally talked to someone who worked in the towers at the time of the attack and she heard explosions. It's the fake accusation that the explosions were actually explosives we take exception to when there are five thousand more rational explanations for them.

This is what's called a "strawman argument"- you make up a false claim against your opponents and then attack the claim to give yourself false credibility. Do you still beat your wife, 4hero?



Hahaha, the shills come out with some classic stuff! Honestly, they really have no idea how stupid their comments are.


Quite a few shills have said there were no explosions, and to say there are 5000 reasons other than explosives is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read in a 9/11 thread! Hahaha! Let me just go to the toilet before I pee myself with laughter!


Of course they were explosives, there is nothing in those buildings that could have caused the explosive damage in the basement, caused the siesmic recordings (even before any 'impact') and it is these explosives that brought the buildings down. They were spaced out to not seem so obvious.

As for wife beating, for one, what has that got to do with this thread? And secondly, I'm female! Hahahahahaha!
edit on 24-5-2012 by 4hero because: added quotes back in.


You've already observed it, I have too, the shills will claim someone is doing something that the shills actually do- such as argue the truthers attack people on the forum- when it's people like Ol'Dave that is throwing out the insults. It's all part of the derailing process to stop discussion.

It's shill 101. Discredit the poster, belittle them, if you can make people question someone's mental state, then people won't take their posts seriously. Even if that doesn't work, the insults can still derail the thread into pissing contests.

Regarding building 7, even if the whole south side was ablaze, the north side wasn't. So if the south side collapsed through fire, then common sense tells us that the whole building wouldn't just give way at close to free fall speed, as it did, and into it's own footprint.

If one side of the building's integrity gave way, then it would partly collapse, or at least topple- it wouldn't 'sink' into it's own footrpint all at once.
edit on 24-5-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
active topics
 
46
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join