The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

page: 30
87
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup
I'me very confused again by your comments. You isolate a quote I made about WTC7, and you then proceed to say that I am twisting words around relating to explosives/explosions? Where in that quote you highlighted do I mention explosions or explosives?

Perhaps I am mistaking you for someone else. Could you state clearly then that evidence of explosions is not inherently evidence of explosives?


Yes, I will deny the existence of a 20 story hole until visual evidence is provided. Why would anyone take a few words on a computer screen as fact without verifiable visual evidence to back up those words? That is surely common sense? In a court of law hearsay is invalid without considerable proof to go with the hearsay. I do not see why asking for verifiable visual evidence would make me biased?

Being biased depends on what evidence you ask for verification on. For example, these quotes are sourced directly from firefighters. They corroborate each other and there are several photos indicating similar or greater damage. That is pretty good evidence to suggest there was a large vertical hole down the entire face of WTC7.


I approach any OS claims with caution, and will always need verifiable evidence, such as visual evidence to go with copy and pasted words, otherwise that evidence is worthless. Do you not work that way, or do you just take everything you are presented by the government agencies as truth?

Actually I require this evidence for both sides. This is where I think you are behaving in a biased manner. You deny the evidence for one side, but seem to implicitly accept the alternate claims presented. For example, there is literally no evidence whatsoever that would meet your criteria for any alternate reality, but yet you claim to have already been convinced.

What evidence convinced you if you require more than multiple person testimony and stacked photographs to prove a simple fact? I've never seen anything that would be able to meet these criteria from the 'alternate' side.


How is asking for visual evidence, about this alleged 20 story hole, that you or nobody has yet to provide 'dismissing everything that disagrees with me', as you put it?

I may have mistaken you for someone else, if so I apologise. There are so many claims made here by so many different people in so many different fashions, that it is hard to keep track.


Well, there is a point becuase if people are saying WTC7 had a transit put on it, then it would seem obvious that they would also put them on WTC 3, 4, 5, & 6.

It would? Which of those were skyscrapers?




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

You claimed that steel buildings are "the same" in New York and Madrid. I find it highly unlikely that they're identical and can thus be expected to behave in identical ways.

An I find it quite funny that you think a concrete core would make no difference to a building's performance.
edit on 6-7-2012 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)


Okay, so explain why the unprotected perimeter columns didn't collapse and leave the concrete core standing.

Oh wait, I know. There was a chunk missing from the southeast corner at the bottom. This set off a chain reaction where all the perimeter columns failed at the same time, and this miraculous coincidence repeated itself 47 times for each floor to collapse to the ground unimpeded.

They must have used Dominos instead of steel beams. And somebody forgot the rivets. God what a miracle the building stood for 30 years and decided to go down in a near free fall huff after the fire chief predicted exactly what time it would happen 5 hours earlier. And all this when nothing like this had ever happened before.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by exponent
You realise that people who believe in JFK conspiracies


Holy Good God, here it is 2012 and we still have someone clinging for dear life to the Magic Bullet.... No way, no how did our own government want JFK dead for threatening to break up the CIA into a thousand pieces and abolish the Fed and start printing real money.

It boggles the mind.


Ah, so you do believe everything conspiracy videos say. Doesn't matter if the facts are different. If the conspiracy people say it's so, you'll take their word for it!


And you believe in fantastic co-incidences that make the odds of winning the lottery look like easy pickings in spite of the overwhelming evidence of corruption and a shadow government that has no regard for the laws of the land.

You have no facts. All you have is what is presented as fact by the PTB. Pardon us for not buying it, now move along sonny.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Okay, so explain why the unprotected perimeter columns didn't collapse and leave the concrete core standing.

Oh wait, I know. There was a chunk missing from the southeast corner at the bottom. This set off a chain reaction where all the perimeter columns failed at the same time, and this miraculous coincidence repeated itself 47 times for each floor to collapse to the ground unimpeded.

They must have used Dominos instead of steel beams. And somebody forgot the rivets. God what a miracle the building stood for 30 years and decided to go down in a near free fall huff after the fire chief predicted exactly what time it would happen 5 hours earlier. And all this when nothing like this had ever happened before.


Prove the opposite, why don't you? Prove that it should have stayed standing after being damaged and burned. You seem to be certain, so you must have all the facts and knowledge. ENLIGHTEN ME.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
ENLIGHTEN ME.


There is no enlightening you. You choose darkness, and you have amply demonstrated that you are not interested in the truth, only in defending the perps.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

You claimed that steel buildings are "the same" in New York and Madrid. I find it highly unlikely that they're identical and can thus be expected to behave in identical ways.

An I find it quite funny that you think a concrete core would make no difference to a building's performance.
edit on 6-7-2012 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)


Okay, so explain why the unprotected perimeter columns didn't collapse and leave the concrete core standing.

Oh wait, I know. There was a chunk missing from the southeast corner at the bottom. This set off a chain reaction where all the perimeter columns failed at the same time, and this miraculous coincidence repeated itself 47 times for each floor to collapse to the ground unimpeded.

They must have used Dominos instead of steel beams. And somebody forgot the rivets. God what a miracle the building stood for 30 years and decided to go down in a near free fall huff after the fire chief predicted exactly what time it would happen 5 hours earlier. And all this when nothing like this had ever happened before.


You're hopelessly confused about what happened. And now your implicating the firemen? (It was several fire personnel by the way, not just "a fire chief").

I don't think anyone in what we like to call "the real world" is going to be particularly swayed when you just make stuff up to justify your beliefs. Certainly I doubt they'll change theirs.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Varemia
ENLIGHTEN ME.


There is no enlightening you. You choose darkness, and you have amply demonstrated that you are not interested in the truth, only in defending the perps.


This is the stupidest thing I've read all week. I'm choosing darkness by asking you to prove your damn point, and you turn around and tell me that you won't. You REFUSE to.

I'm betting you don't have any logical explanation for your beliefs. You simply believe them, like a religious person believes their religion. You have no actual points to make. You just want to be right, and you want everyone else to bow down to your ego.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I agree that there is an aura of darkness around your avatar. I feel your darkness in my waters. It feels prickly and green.
edit on 6-7-2012 by Ilovecatbinlady because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Varemia
ENLIGHTEN ME.


There is no enlightening you. You choose darkness, and you have amply demonstrated that you are not interested in the truth, only in defending the perps.


This is the stupidest thing I've read all week. I'm choosing darkness by asking you to prove your damn point, and you turn around and tell me that you won't. You REFUSE to.

I'm betting you don't have any logical explanation for your beliefs. You simply believe them, like a religious person believes their religion. You have no actual points to make. You just want to be right, and you want everyone else to bow down to your ego.


I have already proven my case, you just refuse to acknowledge it. The videos speak for themselves. You just want 911 to have special allowances that change the laws of physics. Sorry but we're not buying it.

You have been out here for years defending the indefensible with the same rhetoric, lies and obfuscations. This can go on forever, which is undoubtedly what you plan on. Frankly, I have bigger fish to fry. Your argument is proven null and void.

And I see no one, including you, has addressed Bush admitting to the towers being loaded with explosives by "operatives". Tough one to dance around, isn't it?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Windsor Tower is by no means the only one.

911research.wtc7.net...

The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire was particularly spectacular.....




And still, no collapse.

Geez even the Chinese put us to shame in steel frame expertise.....


Yet again you shot yourself in the foot


Mandarin Hotel Beijing hotel fire partial steelwork collapse again concrete survived. ALL the steelwork was replaced the concrete structure held it up.


The boot-shaped high-rise has an exterior steel framework, much of which will be stripped away and rebuilt, and a concrete interior portion that can be salvaged.


The CONCRETE held the steel up !!!!!

Once again find out how your example is built before you post or you end up looking a real Richard Head



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 


Well look here pics and video

911myths.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Frankly, I have bigger fish to fry.


But apparently you don't. I'm always mystified by the way you guys insist that debunkers are there to waste your time by arguing with you, and then you promptly waste your time arguing with them. Strikes me as being like a man who walks into a beartrap he knows is there.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The CONCRETE held the steel up !!!!!

Once again find out how your example is built before you post or you end up looking a real Richard Head


Give us a break. Concrete was quite obviously no match for whatever pulverized it in the twin towers on 911. If WTC had been built like Beijing or Windsor, all we would have is a lot more concrete dust to go along with the steel powder.

Epic fail.

Think of another one.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
You guys do realize that your collective refusal to acknowledge Bush's admission that there were bombs in the main towers will be considered an admission by yourselves that there were bombs in the main towers.

And it goes without saying that if the operatives somehow got into the towers, they also must have wired 7. This entire premise is hysterical in itself, since you OS'ers say that it was impossible to wire the buildings without anyone noticing, now we're supposed to believe that "terrorists" were somehow able to do it


It seems to me that you guys should have been up on this comment by Bush back in 2006 so that you could have concocted your excuses around it, but it's kind of late for that isn't it? You've already spent years doing the tango and the waltz to get around there being bombs and explosions, there's no way you could admit to that now.

Tough spot.

Obfuscation Blvd does have its end, just like every other road.

Oh well.
edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Here's a few images of WTC7, I certainly do not see a 20 story hole in them anywhere!








Here's some overhead photos of WTC7 post collapse, as anyone can see, the buildings in front of it sustained way more damage that WTC7 did prior to it coming down, and they were still standing.







Also, in this slideshow the extent of the fires and damage to WTC7 can be seen, it shows that there just was not enough damage to WTC7 for it to come doen, and certainly in none of these is there a 20 story hole! Firemen reports can be fabricated, visual evidence does not lie.




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

The CONCRETE held the steel up !!!!!

Once again find out how your example is built before you post or you end up looking a real Richard Head


This position could not possibly be more absurd. For the entire history of building before steel framing was discovered, no one could build a concrete structure more than 20 stories high unless it had a gigantic footprint, which would negate the advantage gained in height because of how much real estate was needed.

And yet, we're supposed to believe that concrete is stronger than steel, to the point where it can hold up gigantic skyscapers more than 500 feet tall.

How many straws are in your arsenal?
edit on 6-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ilovecatbinlady

Originally posted by r2d246
Might not have been C demo. It might have been an energy weapon. The reason being that to wire it all up would have been noticed big time. Also there wasn't enough debree left. I think the building was also dustified. (turned to dust) youtube: judy wood.to find out more about that.


Nowadays, you don't need to 'wire up' charges. You can use wireless devices and a simple smoke detector maintenance programme would allow the illicit installation of wireless charges.


No I seriously doubt that. Watching those demolition shows they showed that if there is Rebar in the wrong place, a retaining wall in the wrong place, some steel in the wrong place and it won't come down right. You need to gut the building to figure out where everything is exactly. Then you need to wire it all because I think if you use a signal and for some reason one more don't get the signal it won't go down right. Also you need to drill into the concrete supports. It's next to impossible while the building is all full. Also the building turned mostly into dust. There's no debree. I could be wrong but I guess no one will ever really know. Oh no wait..... it was what main stream media told us.... it was the fires



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Here is a good collection of buildings damaged by fire, planes and bombs amaongst other things, some in a much worse state than both of the towers and WTC7, and they all did not collpase, or completely collapse.

pondering224.blogspot.co.uk...

Included in this is the damage to high rise flats in Amsterdam 1992, caused by 'El Al Flight 1862' this was split in half, was on fire, and still stood. They also managed to recover bodies, the black box recorder, and sizeable, recognisable plane parts.

Worth a look at this collection to compare to WTC7 & the towers, just adds more weight to the fact the 3 buildings from 9/11 should not have collapsed.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


What experience do you have in building or structural steel or fire proofing or fire suppression systems . I think your only experience is trying to be a junior republican . I believe you would defend old Bush and Cheney to the end . From what I can make of your post you have absolutely no experience in the matter at all . You have no concept of the situation . I'm quite sure you will deny the existence of the Global Conspiracy called the NWO and Agenda21 as well . My thought is that you are completely ignorant of that matter which is in the thick of things with the WTC attack .
Now is a time for you to sit back and learn ..



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by Varemia
 


What experience do you have in building or structural steel or fire proofing or fire suppression systems . I think your only experience is trying to be a junior republican . I believe you would defend old Bush and Cheney to the end . From what I can make of your post you have absolutely no experience in the matter at all . You have no concept of the situation . I'm quite sure you will deny the existence of the Global Conspiracy called the NWO and Agenda21 as well . My thought is that you are completely ignorant of that matter which is in the thick of things with the WTC attack .
Now is a time for you to sit back and learn ..


A republican? Are you crazy?

I don't defend Bush and Cheney. I thought they were terrible when they were in office.

I have to ask though, are you insinuating that you have more relevant experience on the matter? I've been doing a lot of research and referencing architects and engineering websites. Where have you gotten your information? Conspiracy videos?

As a matter of fact, I'm fairly sure there is a global conspiracy, but it will never be a new world order. It'll always be shrouded. You may think I'm some kind of government apologist, but I believe my fair share of conspiracies. You're the ridiculous one for making all these assumptions about someone you don't even know, simply because he disagrees with your point of view.





top topics
 
87
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join