Hollywood to Challenge Official Version of 9/11: Sheen, Asner and Harrelson to Star in Film.

page: 11
53
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek


This is the problem truthers have when being confronted by facts. You cannot go and claim the building was pulled, and then reverse and say it was not the NYFD, but when reading the quote it is clear who he spoke to and who made the decision to do anything. So are you going by his full quote, or are you cherry picking the parts you want and creating a whole new account that has nothing to do with the original? This whole "pull it" nonsense came about from truthers cherry picking a single line from an entire quote that when taken in context, means nothing the truthers are trying to falsely create. Just by his quote alone, truthers are also accusing the NYFD of explosive demolitions. It is that simple. You cannot create a whole new narrative from a quote that was erroneously (or maliciously in this case) taken out of context, and expect it to hold water.


It doesn't also have to be your way. He said the decision to pull it as if he was telling them that was happening. He was informing NYFD they were pulling it. There you go, not accusing NYFD of anything. It isn't pulled out of context. People use words for a reason. Those words have meanings. It wasn't an accident that he used the term 'pull'.

And about WTC7. There is absolutely a difference between one fire and another. A small office fire is much different than the jet fuel fire at WTC 1 and 2. Lets assume for a second it was the jet fueled fire that took down WTC 1 and 2, I'm not sure about this in my own opinion but that's not the topic now. So that jet fueled fire was what it took to take the first sky scraper down in history. The fires in WTC7 were NOT jet fueled fire. So yes, it burned at a MUCH cooler temperature than WTC1 and 2. You can see this in difference of smoke and color of the fire. And I don't know about you, but I have seen many offices have fires. And some which burnt much much longer and none of those sky scrapers fell, let alone fell in their own foot print.

And that leads me to another question I have ( I like this debate as long as we both stay cool and civil)...How do you explain an office fire taking a building down in free fall speed into its own footprint? Even if the fire took it down, it would have slowly crumbled. It would not have fallen in free fall speed. And let me explain why the free fall speed is so important....

For something to fall in free fall speed, it would mean there is no resistance. Because if there was resistance, it would have taken longer to fall. A fire causing the building to collapse would create resistance, steel, concrete, metal, iron, etc give resistance and slows the fall down. But we cant argue the speed, it was free fall. Thus there cant be resistance. What does no resistance mean? It means all that steel and concrete had to be obliterated. The only thing that can do that are explosives.
edit on 25-11-2012 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-11-2012 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
The fires in WTC7 were NOT jet fueled fire.


True, but large fires burnt unchecked for 7 hours..


After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[33] Over the course of the day fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[34][35] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[30] In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[36] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[37] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[38] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel



How do you explain an office fire taking a building down in free fall speed into its own footprint?


It did NOT fall at free fall speed, nor did it fall into its own footprint...

When the first 7 World Trade Center collapsed, debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building was not salvageable


I suggest you get your information at places other than truther sites, as they are full of lies.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Of course there is going to be some debris, that doesn't answer it falling into its own footprint. And nowhere did any of your quotes address free fall speed.

Edit to add.... There have been plenty of buildings that had fires longer than 7 hours, none of those collapsed however.
edit on 25-11-2012 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Also it doesnt matter if the fire burnt for 7 hours or 27 hours, if it cant reach a temperature hot enough to bend the steel and collapse the building, no amount of time will help.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
that doesn't answer it falling into its own footprint.


It never fell into its own footprint, as I showed that is just a truther lie.


And nowhere did any of your quotes address free fall speed.


As the whole building never fell at free fall speed, what is there to address, apart from just another trther lie!



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Why? Because you say so? It is clocked at free fall speed. Id love to see something of merit that shows otherwise. Aside from the 9/11 commission... Oh wait, that never even addressed WTC7 and these issues.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
Why? Because you say so?


No, the facts say so. Why do you claim it fell into its own footprint? There is nothing but lies backing that silly claim up....


Id love to see something of merit that shows otherwise.


How about showing it fell at free fall speed then....


Aside from the 9/11 commission... Oh wait, that never even addressed WTC7 .


Well, why not look to see why, the answer is very easy to find but you seem to ignore it!



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Its been shown multiple multiple multiple times on ats and everywhere else. Watch the fall your self and clock it with a stopwatch. So far all you have done is just claim lies because .. they are lies.. because they are lies. No actual evidence to show.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
Its been shown multiple multiple multiple times on ats and everywhere else. Watch the fall your self and clock it with a stopwatch.


I thought that was where you were getting your false information - truther videos of the collapse leave out the penthouse.... also can you even see the base of the building?


No actual evidence to show.


Except of course I have showed evidence that it never fell into its own footprint, but again truthers ignore that fact as it destroys their conspiracy!
edit on 25-11-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I think WTC7 fell nearly freefall from my observation of the videos I've seen
In my opinion of my experience with gravity, I mean.

Anyone seen a video recently



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


So, what does jet fuel and plastic office chairs, plastic floor mats, carpet made from recycled plastic bottles have in common?


They are all made from petroleum. Office fires can get hot enough to cause steel to fail. WTC 7 was not the first example, nor the last.

I do not know why so many people seem to forget that WTC 7 was heavily damaged by WTC1's collapse BEFORE those large fires burned for hours.....



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by bknapple32
Why? Because you say so?


No, the facts say so. Why do you claim it fell into its own footprint? There is nothing but lies backing that silly claim up....


Id love to see something of merit that shows otherwise.


How about showing it fell at free fall speed then....


Aside from the 9/11 commission... Oh wait, that never even addressed WTC7 .


Well, why not look to see why, the answer is very easy to find but you seem to ignore it!


Some videos providing evidence of WT7 free fall and another showing NIST admitting to free fall

I have not watched all of these yet i am still going through them, i thought it was worth a share



video description


This video tracks the motion of the NW corner of Building 7 of the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001. For a period of ~2.5 seconds. This means it was falling through itself for over 100 feet with zero resistance, an impossibility in any natural scenario. This period of freefall is solid evidence that explosives had to be used to bring the building down. In the final draft for public comment (August 2008) NIST denied that WTC7 fell at freefall. In the final report in Nov 2008 they reversed themselves and admitted freefall, but denied its obvious significance.
-----
[The WTC7 series has elicited a number of questions from people unclear on the details of how I did the measurements, compared to how NIST did them and how the representatives of NIST described their measurements. I have therefore created a WTC7 Measurement FAQ page: www.911speakout.org... . I will also use this FAQ as a place of reference for other questions that arise as well.


and another series of videos

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall




posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I thought Guardian readers were mean to be a smart, intellectual, objective bunch. Top rated comment, recommended 314 times, by commenter "johngradycole"



It happened just as we saw it despite what the crazies have concocted.



Oh dear oh dear.





top topics
 
53
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join