yup ... indeed ..

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Turkenstein
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

Not only did it collapse, it collapsed into it's own footprint at freefall speed. How's that for an adder?

It didn't collapse at freefall speed :-

www.youtube.com...

Nor did it fall in its own footprint. It damaged adjacent buildings.

At 11 years plus it is really far too late to keep posting this old long debunked stuff.

So, if you supposedly 'debunked' this a long time ago, then why are you still trying to debunk it 11 years later?!

Seems to me that you have not been successful convincing people of your 'debunking', and so, many years down the line, you are still trying to find somebody that will believe you.

Those, like yourself, claiming to be debunkers, hang on to wildly unbelievable theories, that are way beyond any conspiracy theory.

No amount of reasons you put forward will remove the fact that fire was not responsible for the collapse of WTC7. The external damage to WTC7 was minimal, I've seen the picture with the so called 'gouge' and that is just a misleading image. The supposed hole is too perfect and straight, it's sold by debunkers as a gouge, but it's not.

Well done OP, excellent photo, yet another thing to add to file of 'things that contradict the OS'!!

Originally posted by Ewok_Boba
reply to post by GenRadek

 

A bit flustered are we?

If it's about reading comprehension, wouldn't your comprehension skills be sub par if you can't understand where the OP's perspective is coming from? You can't tell that there could be two possible meanings from one of the sentences in that paragraph?

What is meant by the word "it"? Either it's referring to:

1) The firefighting operation.

2) Demolishing the building.

Obviously that's where people are divided.

Since you just don't get it, allow me to offer an alternative example:

Suppose I demolished a mansion I built a few months back. It caught on fire, and the firefighters could not stop the flames. If I say:

"...Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

The only difference between me and the OP's person of interest, is that I made it clear I was demolishing the building. If I hadn't, then everyone would assume that sentence referred to the firefighting operation. That's why people aren't sure. Context doesn't matter here.


Everything else you wrote was not in question. The sentence in question is not about "getting facts in order", it's about understanding a possible secondary meaning in the wording. And yes, when the OP was talking about the WTC owner making the "call to pull it", you referring to the fire commander was factually incorrect.

Ahh, but this is where these debunker's theory falls down, Larry is not going to say pull the firemen from WTC7 because they apparently did not attempt to put out the fires in WTC7!

Also, Larry is no authority over the firemen, so he would not be giving them orders to pull men out, men that were not there in the first place. Maybe a few in the surrounding area, but none working on WTC7 around that time.

So many holes in the OS and debunker's theories, it's all over the shop, so many holes that they just cant plug them all, no matter how hard they try!

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
Also, Larry is no authority over the firemen, so he would not be giving them orders to pull men out, men that were not there in the first place.

But Larry is an authority over the dastardly NWO operatives that filled the building with nano-thermite that was not there in the first place? Either he has some pull with the NYFD, or he has some pull with the military-industrial-intelligence-Illuminati-Republican-NYFD complex.* You can't remove the NYFD from the conversation, we know they were there, and we know he was talking to them. You can't alter Larry's role as an advisor/unofficial authority, at least as he tells the story. You do have to decide if he was just advising the NYFD, or if he was also advising the invisible conspirators. This is where Occam's razor is useful.

* Or replace with your favorite shadowy conspiracy group.

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
So many holes in the OS and debunker's theories,

But according to truthers the the fire department apparently enter burning buildings to paint on nanoo nanoo thermite, place tonnes of explosives in there, put mini nukes in the basement.... then light the thermite, set of the explosives then blow up the mini nuke.... or was it the explosives, then the thermite, then the mini nuke... or was the mini nule set off first, followed by the explosives then thermite.... or?

Truthers have nothing but silly conspiracy theories, zero evidence, no facts just some people making money, flogging books and dvd's and doing speaking tours.

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
Ahh, but this is where these debunker's theory falls down, Larry is not going to say pull the firemen from WTC7 because they apparently did not attempt to put out the fires in WTC7!

Also, Larry is no authority over the firemen, so he would not be giving them orders to pull men out, men that were not there in the first place. Maybe a few in the surrounding area, but none working on WTC7 around that time.

So many holes in the OS and debunker's theories, it's all over the shop, so many holes that they just cant plug them all, no matter how hard they try!

Really? How does Larry know what the NYFD is doing exactly? Was he there onsite? Not that I am aware of. How does he know anything? The fire commander called him, telling him that WTC7 is beyond saving as there were many issues that were to hamper any serious firefighting efforts. No water in the pipes, no water in the hoses, no pressure, major fires across multiple floors, many NYFD MIA and KIA, and the structure was showing significant signs of impending structural failure. So were they actually "fighting" the fires in WTC7? Probably not much at all, due to the chaos of the day. Were they trying? Sure. There are accounts of firefighters heading into WTC7 to rescue any potential trapped victims in WTC7, and there were accounts of firefighters attempting to make moves on Seven when they were "pulled" from the site. So Larry was under the assumption that the NYFD was trying to do something, but was not aware of just what they were doing, and the NYFD commander knew there were small scale attempts to try to get at WTC7, but nothing major was done, and any attempts later were pulled due to the worsening condition of the building.

And yes, you are right, Larry has no authority over NYFD people. but what exactly is wrong with making a suggestion regarding your building and the safety of those trying to save it (even if futile in the end)? Larry gave no orders to anyone. The fire commander gave the order to pull. So now, are you suggesting the NYFD commander is in charge of explosive demolition of massive structures and he blew up WTC7? is this what you believe?

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
So many holes in the OS and debunker's theories,

But according to truthers the the fire department apparently enter burning buildings to paint on nanoo nanoo thermite, place tonnes of explosives in there, put mini nukes in the basement.... then light the thermite, set of the explosives then blow up the mini nuke.... or was it the explosives, then the thermite, then the mini nuke... or was the mini nule set off first, followed by the explosives then thermite.... or?

Truthers have nothing but silly conspiracy theories, zero evidence, no facts just some people making money, flogging books and dvd's and doing speaking tours.

I thought this thread was being monitored ?

I find this post extremely insulting

1st ..."Truthers" is a derogatory term concocted to discredited people actually trying to get to the truth, As if someone seeking the truth is a bad person I myself will not categorize anyone as it is a nasty tactic to divide people and create an us and them when it certainly isn't the case.....

If I called anyone or a group as "Shill" or "Shills" I would get a ban, but people are allowed to throw around "Truther" as if it is not meant as a derogatory remark!

Anyway

Replying to your ridiculous post, I have never ever seen anyone post anything like what you have written here, could you direct me to the post you are referring to that states what you are stating?

I don't see why you would write what you have written without trying to mock people or belittle them, most people are not stupid, ok some are but in general people are not stupid yet you are trying to band a group together to mock and you call them "Truthers"

The evidence for the questioning the OS regarding WTC7 is all to plain to see, the lack of damage, the lack of fire to this building, the unusual speed it fell, the witness accounts, the firefighters remarks on the day, silversteins remarks, the actual tenants of WTC7..the report it fell by the BBC 20 mins before it did fall.....and many more discrepancies

All the stuff above smells fishy, Fact
If you and others don't see issues with the OS for WTC7 then thats up to you....But to try and mock others that smell a rat with the whole situation is bad play and quite low

it is quite obvious it smells.......but ....all these coincidences have not made you and others not to question it?
this I find strange

Originally posted by zerozero00
I have never ever seen anyone post anything like what you have written here, could you direct me to the post you are referring to that states what you are stating?

have a look at the 9/11 forum, you will find many threads making the silly claims, such as:

Mini Nukes
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Thermite
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Explosives
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Then there are the beam weapons....
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Then there are the holographic aircraft, aircraft carrying pods firing missiles at the WTC buildings....

All silly conspiracy theories posted here many times before

reply to post by hellobruce


After going through your links that you've posted to show me your evidence it becomes quite clear you can't show me that post as it is posted....instead your links are all highly speculative individual theories that may or may not have merit, some are interesting theories and some not so.

Instead of throwing mud around why not show the reason behind all the discrepancies i have posted
without making up unbelievable stories that don't fit the evidence as it occurred

I would love to be able to accept the OS as Fact....But I can't as it just doesn't add up

Danny Jowenko and Barry Jennings are both dead for telling it how it was R.I.P to both these guys

Why should I be convinced there is no conspiracy surrounding WTC7 ?

There is no way I'm even going to attempt to speculate how the day was planned and executed as it defies physics without foul play....I didn't do it so why would I know how it was done?

Originally posted by zerozero00
I find this post extremely insulting

1st ..."Truthers" is a derogatory term concocted to discredited people actually trying to get to the truth, As if someone seeking the truth is a bad person

It's a term coined and adored by the 'truth' movement itself. If you consider it derogatory, talk with them about it.

Originally posted by zerozero00
If I called anyone or a group as "Shill" or "Shills" I would get a ban, but people are allowed to throw around "Truther" as if it is not meant as a derogatory remark!

I've yet to see that happen. Got examples? 'truther' has become an epithet by virtue of the actions and opinions of 'truthers' themselves

Originally posted by zerozero00
The evidence for the questioning the OS regarding WTC7 is all to plain to see, the lack of damage,

The what?

Originally posted by zerozero00
the lack of fire to this building,

The what?

Originally posted by zerozero00
the unusual speed it fell,

Addressed to the satisfaction of professionals worldwide (with the exception of a group representing less than one tenth of one percent who [IIRC] count virtually no professionals experienced in relevant matters amongst their number) yet somehow Internet conspiracy theorists side with the latter rather than the former. Don't look to me to parse that particular disconnect.

Originally posted by zerozero00
the witness accounts,

Of what? A compromised, fire-riddled building falling straight down? What?

Originally posted by zerozero00
the firefighters remarks on the day,

What? The firefighters who were expecting for nearly five hours previously that the building was going to come down? Or are we talking 'explosions' (which unfortunately didn't coincide anywhere near with the fall of the building making it the most unusual controlled demolition in history).

Originally posted by zerozero00
silversteins remarks,

Oh...the cherry-picking expedition?

Originally posted by zerozero00
the actual tenants of WTC7..

So?

Originally posted by zerozero00
the report it fell by the BBC 20 mins before it did fall.....

Conveniently forgetting all the other things that 'happened' (but which really didn't) that day. Since you know nothing of the news business, your faith that news organisations are utterly and without fail right all the time is touching (if ill-placed). You should check out your newspaper sometime; you'd be surprised how often news organisations get it wrong and have to correct something they've reported and this in circumstances far less stressed chaotic than 9/11.

Originally posted by zerozero00
and many more discrepancies

Like?

Originally posted by zerozero00
All the stuff above smells fishy, Fact

To you. Your expertise in relevant fields is.....?

Originally posted by zerozero00
If you and others don't see issues with the OS for WTC7 then thats up to you....But to try and mock others that smell a rat with the whole situation is bad play and quite low

Sorry but when an individual willing denies what anyone with even a high school grasp of basic physics would understand and instead makes up or adheres to convoluted theories that'd make Rube Goldberg blush, pointing out that folly isn't mockery.

Originally posted by zerozero00
it is quite obvious it smells.......but ....all these coincidences have not made you and others not to question it?
this I find strange

I looked at the 'questions' about the 'coincidences', parsed them years ago and found them wanting. Nothing in the interim has come up to gainsay my parsing

Fitz

reply to post by wmd_2008

Seriously YOU think whats underlined above, so if what people are trying to claim that 9/11 was a deliberate act and was a demolition job what difference would another one or two more buildings make

Yes I seriously think that. Give me a reason to change my mind. What difference would one two more buildings make is not good enough. Why would they need to destroy more then they had to? The towers were to make a statement (scare the whole world) wtc 7 had something in it that had to be destroyed, everything in between was unavoidable. That's just my opinion.

The South side wasn't destroyed it had structural damage that's why when the steelwork failed internally although seen from the north side it looked a straight vertical collapse the South side fell that direction and part of the north wall ends up on top of the debris because of that.

I meant the area to the south was already destroyed by the towers.

I don't want to talk about the south side of the building, I get it, it had structural damage. Explain to me the east and west corners of the north side please. What is the scientific explanation for north wall to collapse as a unit and at the same speed.

Again I am not even close to an expert, but I did a lot of research and so far I haven't found an explanation as to why didn't the North wall fall apart like normal gravitational collapses normally do. I mean it even had a kink (that you pointed out in previous post) which separated the east and the west, yet the corners were coming down at the same rate of speed.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
Ahh, but this is where these debunker's theory falls down, Larry is not going to say pull the firemen from WTC7 because they apparently did not attempt to put out the fires in WTC7!

Also, Larry is no authority over the firemen, so he would not be giving them orders to pull men out, men that were not there in the first place. Maybe a few in the surrounding area, but none working on WTC7 around that time.

So many holes in the OS and debunker's theories, it's all over the shop, so many holes that they just cant plug them all, no matter how hard they try!

Really? How does Larry know what the NYFD is doing exactly? Was he there onsite? Not that I am aware of. How does he know anything? The fire commander called him, telling him that WTC7 is beyond saving as there were many issues that were to hamper any serious firefighting efforts. No water in the pipes, no water in the hoses, no pressure, major fires across multiple floors, many NYFD MIA and KIA, and the structure was showing significant signs of impending structural failure. So were they actually "fighting" the fires in WTC7? Probably not much at all, due to the chaos of the day. Were they trying? Sure. There are accounts of firefighters heading into WTC7 to rescue any potential trapped victims in WTC7, and there were accounts of firefighters attempting to make moves on Seven when they were "pulled" from the site. So Larry was under the assumption that the NYFD was trying to do something, but was not aware of just what they were doing, and the NYFD commander knew there were small scale attempts to try to get at WTC7, but nothing major was done, and any attempts later were pulled due to the worsening condition of the building.

And yes, you are right, Larry has no authority over NYFD people.

but what exactly is wrong with making a suggestion regarding your building and the safety of those trying to save it (even if futile in the end)? Larry gave no orders to anyone. The fire commander gave the order to pull. So now, are you suggesting the NYFD commander is in charge of explosive demolition of massive structures and he blew up WTC7? is this what you believe?

Its easy to make excuses for people motives but not for the evidence.

Like the most daming evidence against wtc7 being a natural collapse.

The path of least resistance.

In any and all structures this path is never straight down. it is always to the side.

Now I believe you took part in my hijacked spire thread .and I think in that thread there is a reference (ill find it if u want) that the firefighters were measuring the rate of LEAN on wtc7 .

if it is leaning then the path of least resistance is to the leaning side . Not straight down.

Please show and example of a building collapse that fails to follow the path of least resistance (other than wtc1 2 and 7)

Originally posted by Another_Nut
In any and all structures this path is never straight down. it is always to the side.

And this comes from your experience as an expert in the field of controlled demolition? If not, where? I trust you're not about to trot out that any of the buildings should've toppled like a tree!??!

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Please show and example of a building collapse that fails to follow the path of least resistance (other than wtc1 2 and 7)

Virtually every controlled demolition.

Fitz

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by Another_Nut
In any and all structures this path is never straight down. it is always to the side.

And this comes from your experience as an expert in the field of controlled demolition? If not, where? I trust you're not about to trot out that any of the buildings should've toppled like a tree!??!

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Please show and example of a building collapse that fails to follow the path of least resistance (other than wtc1 2 and 7)

Virtually every controlled demolition.

Fitz

Because when you build something that's path of least resistance is down guess what happens....

It falls.

Every controlled demo follows this logic. Remove all the supports and path of least resistance becomes down.

Now look at a failed controlled demo. They fall to the side. Because if you remove only half of the supports the path changes to the weak side.

Simple really

Eta . Wtc1 and 2 . We should have seen the "tops" fall out and over the sides. Not pulverization of 2 110 story buildings. Wtc7 should have looked like a it was leaning at the time of full collapse. with debris falling to the weak side.

Also thank you for admitting that the only other examples of collapses that looks like those on 9/11 are controlled demo.

reply to post by Another_Nut


Please take a look at verinage demolition. It completely debunks your baseless assertion, as the buildings demolished using that technique do not have their supports compromised. Also, take a look at the building collapse in rio I posted earlier.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

Please take a look at verinage demolition. It completely debunks your baseless assertion, as the buildings demolished using that technique do not have their supports compromised. Also, take a look at the building collapse in rio I posted earlier.

Verinage demolition. Now I dont subscribe to his thermite theory but the rest seems gold

911debunkers.blogspot.com...

care to explain why you think something as simple as path of least resistance is so against your ideologly that it is a "baseless assertion"

en.m.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Another_Nut

Eta . Wtc1 and 2 . We should have seen the "tops" fall out and over the sides. Not pulverization of 2 110 story buildings. Wtc7 should have looked like a it was leaning at the time of full collapse. with debris falling to the weak side.

This assumes that the 15 stories above could structually support themselves at a 15 degree angle.

If we could have magically lifted the undamaged 15 floors and placed them on flat ground at a 15 degree angle. Do you think the building section would have held itself up?
Or would have the walls on the bottom most floor buckled sideways? Remember there were no 'extra' interior walls to add bracing.
If the bottom floor buckeled, the remaining 14 floors would gain momentum before they, in turn, would contact the ground and buckle.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

Eta . Wtc1 and 2 . We should have seen the "tops" fall out and over the sides. Not pulverization of 2 110 story buildings. Wtc7 should have looked like a it was leaning at the time of full collapse. with debris falling to the weak side.

This assumes that the 15 stories above could structually support themselves at a 15 degree angle.

If we could have magically lifted the undamaged 15 floors and placed them on flat ground at a 15 degree angle. Do you think the building section would have held itself up?
Or would have the walls on the bottom most floor buckled sideways? Remember there were no 'extra' interior walls to add bracing.
If the bottom floor buckeled, the remaining 14 floors would gain momentum before they, in turn, would contact the ground and buckle.

Ty for the off topic Sam.
But since you ask

they did exactly what i think they should have done.

But most people ignore it or don't know. It is that there were not 3 collapses that day but 5 . Wtc1 and 2 collapsed twice each.

The first collapse was a dustiflying the concrete floors allowing the exterior steel to be pushed out.

Bit after each collapse there were the standing remains ( and what should have been left post collapse) of the buildings.

after the concrete was gone the core "spires" were destroyed.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
So many holes in the OS and debunker's theories,

But according to truthers the the fire department apparently enter burning buildings to paint on nanoo nanoo thermite, place tonnes of explosives in there, put mini nukes in the basement.... then light the thermite, set of the explosives then blow up the mini nuke.... or was it the explosives, then the thermite, then the mini nuke... or was the mini nule set off first, followed by the explosives then thermite.... or?

Truthers have nothing but silly conspiracy theories, zero evidence, no facts just some people making money, flogging books and dvd's and doing speaking tours.

What a load of rubbish! Where have you read that 'firemen' painted on thermite?!

There may be the odd 'truther' as you call them that does have a far out theory, but that is not the gereal consensus.

Obviously there are many different theories, some based on real physics, some based on fantasy, and people like yourself are very narrow-minded to bundle together everyone that does not believe the official story, and make them all out to have the same 'silly' views.

You know that humans are all different, so to make such generalisation is either because you're very ignorant, or you are just trolling.

You have nothing to bring to the 9/11 debate here other than the usual name-calling that so called debunkers resort to. Are there any of you 'debunkers' that actually have anything intellectual and engaging to say?

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
Ahh, but this is where these debunker's theory falls down, Larry is not going to say pull the firemen from WTC7 because they apparently did not attempt to put out the fires in WTC7!

Also, Larry is no authority over the firemen, so he would not be giving them orders to pull men out, men that were not there in the first place. Maybe a few in the surrounding area, but none working on WTC7 around that time.

So many holes in the OS and debunker's theories, it's all over the shop, so many holes that they just cant plug them all, no matter how hard they try!

Really? How does Larry know what the NYFD is doing exactly? Was he there onsite? Not that I am aware of. How does he know anything? The fire commander called him, telling him that WTC7 is beyond saving as there were many issues that were to hamper any serious firefighting efforts. No water in the pipes, no water in the hoses, no pressure, major fires across multiple floors, many NYFD MIA and KIA, and the structure was showing significant signs of impending structural failure. So were they actually "fighting" the fires in WTC7? Probably not much at all, due to the chaos of the day. Were they trying? Sure. There are accounts of firefighters heading into WTC7 to rescue any potential trapped victims in WTC7, and there were accounts of firefighters attempting to make moves on Seven when they were "pulled" from the site. So Larry was under the assumption that the NYFD was trying to do something, but was not aware of just what they were doing, and the NYFD commander knew there were small scale attempts to try to get at WTC7, but nothing major was done, and any attempts later were pulled due to the worsening condition of the building.

And yes, you are right, Larry has no authority over NYFD people.

but what exactly is wrong with making a suggestion regarding your building and the safety of those trying to save it (even if futile in the end)? Larry gave no orders to anyone. The fire commander gave the order to pull. So now, are you suggesting the NYFD commander is in charge of explosive demolition of massive structures and he blew up WTC7? is this what you believe?

It seems you guys have an answer for everything! How convenient that had 'no water'! I find that very hard to believe that considering how close they were to many water sources!

Can you provide me with some interviews with some of the 4,000 occupants that were evactuated from WTC7 that day? How come we don't have WTC7 occupants telling their story? 4000 of them and none want to talk about that day?!

You say "the fire commander gave the order to pull" pull what exactly? No men were inside WTC7 or attempting to put the small fires out, (for some strange reason!), so what is there to 'pull'?

Typical so called debunker saying things like:

So now, are you suggesting the NYFD commander is in charge of explosive demolition of massive structures and he blew up WTC7? is this what you believe?

Which you know full well I never said anything of the sort! You debunkers are either very stupid, or just trolling, certainly not here to really debate 9/11.

Originally posted by Another_Nut

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

Please take a look at verinage demolition. It completely debunks your baseless assertion, as the buildings demolished using that technique do not have their supports compromised. Also, take a look at the building collapse in rio I posted earlier.

Verinage demolition. Now I dont subscribe to his thermite theory but the rest seems gold

911debunkers.blogspot.com...

care to explain why you think something as simple as path of least resistance is so against your ideologly that it is a "baseless assertion"

en.m.wikipedia.org...

edit on 13-4-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

Although its unscientific nonsenes, in no way that link supports your claim that a building can not collapse through the "path of most resistance". In fact, verniage demolition completely debunks that notion. So does the other example I gave. Your option is to continue to deny reality, or to educate yourself. Most of the people in here are some steps ahead of you. Though they get stuck on explaining how the collapse would arrest after x floors. You will see explanations like "its common sense" or "its basic physics" but you will never see actual models or calculations. To a laymen that may seem insignificant, but to someone who is versed in the sciences its one huge red flag.