“What about building 7?”

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Who collected billions of dollars in insurance money with the buildings - plural - being destroyed?

That's the problem with people who don't see the whole forest, when looking at a tree.


Actually Larry lost BILLIONS on this attack. Insurance wouldnt cover all the damages and wouldnt cover rebuilding expenses. He also had to pay rent on the site that was generating ZERO income for years.

You may want to read up on some facts about this misconception. He didnt profit at all.

Larry Silverstein's huge loss




posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Flatcoat

Uh-huh...and how long did it take the U.S. Gov to accuse, try, convict and execute an entire country? Make that two countries. They were throwing around OBL's name an hour after the attack.......couldn't see it coming, but knew within an hour who did it.....yeah right.


Well golly gee, who else has been the #1 terrorist that could pull off a massive attack on foreign soil at the time and has been responsible for countless attacks around the world pror to 9/11? Old Agnes of 32 Meadow Lane in Bumbletown Idaho?
Refresh my memory, who blew up the USS Cole? WTC 1993? Khobar Towers? Embassy Bombings in East Africa? Assassination attempts on the Pope and Pres Clinton?

Yeaah. not too hard to figure out who dunno it after previous massive causality attacks. Hell even I knew it was OBL while I watched the attacks. youd have to have been pretty dense not to think or entertain the possibility of his involvement.


Well congratulations! You solved the case an hour after it happened? The USG should disband their entire intelligence gathering community and just hire you.....again, kudos for your service to humanity.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatcoat


Well congratulations! You solved the case an hour after it happened? The USG should disband their entire intelligence gathering community and just hire you.....again, kudos for your service to humanity.




Ah ok, so its wrong then to point the finger at the person that was actively saying "Death to America" 10x a day, was responsible for numerous mass casualty attacks in the past and just blew up a Navy destroyer less than a year earlier? Riiiight....

Plus, it was extremely obvious who dunnit, and also, they confirmed, and the kicker, OBL himself ADMITTED IT!!!



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Logical one
 


There are many videos of Building 7 just prior to its collapse. Why don't you watch a few of them and point out to us the massive fires and damage that is apparent in those videos? A picture is worth a thousand words after all...



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Who collected billions of dollars in insurance money with the buildings - plural - being destroyed?

That's the problem with people who don't see the whole forest, when looking at a tree.


Actually Larry lost BILLIONS on this attack. Insurance wouldnt cover all the damages and wouldnt cover rebuilding expenses. He also had to pay rent on the site that was generating ZERO income for years.

You may want to read up on some facts about this misconception. He didnt profit at all.

Larry Silverstein's huge loss


How much money do you figure was spent by the US government as a result of the 9/11 attacks and where did it all go? I just checked the US National Debt Clock and it currently stands at nearly $17 TRILLION dollars. Where did all that money go??? If it was pumped into the US economy then the US economy should be in the biggest boom in history right now!!!



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by Logical one
 


There are many videos of Building 7 just prior to its collapse. Why don't you watch a few of them and point out to us the massive fires and damage that is apparent in those videos? A picture is worth a thousand words after all...




Well, that took a whole minute to find. At about 50 seconds in you get a nice view of the thick smoke pouring out of the damaged structure over about 20 floors on the damaged side. There aren't a whole lot of videos that show it clearly, for a couple of reasons.

1. The best place to view the fire and damage was from on top of the rubble of the twin towers. Most folks had the common sense to remove themselves from the general area. So most video that we have doesn't show the collapse-damaged side clearly.

2. Aerial views of WTC7 after the collapse of the first two towers are unsurprisingly obscured by lots of smoke and clouds of dust.
edit on 7/17/2013 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)
edit on 7/17/2013 by DrEugeneFixer because: youtube link



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


Given the fact that Robert Berhinig, P.E. states in “Protecting the Foundation of Fire-Safety,” in the July/August, 2002 IAEI (International Associaton of Electrical Inspectors) that “the FEMA report states further that until the attack on the WTC, no protected steel framed buildings had been known to collapse as a result of fire” and the fact that I did not see the physical damage referred to in the original reply would you please point out that severe damage to me?



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 

I did not see the physical damage referred to in the original reply would you please point out that severe damage to me?


If you press the play button on the video, you will see smoke pouring out of an approximately 20 story tall gash in the south side of building 7, where falling pieces of the north tower directly impacted it. Maybe that doesn't qualify as 'severe damage' in your book.

You asked for photographic evidence, and I provided it.

The motto of this site is 'deny ignorance', not 'deny evidence'.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


So in your mind seeing smoke pour from the windows of a steel frame building, with no apparent external damage to the building, despite the fact is well documented that NO such building has ever collapsed before due to fire, constitutes evidence that such a building collapsed due to a fire? Is that how your 'logic' works?



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
**REMINDER**

Just gonna leave this here:

Any Terms & Conditions infraction in the 9/11 forum may result in the termination of your account without warning.

Regards,

~Tenth
ATS Mod



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


with no apparent external damage to the building.


Actually, at 1:38 you can see that there is visible damage on the southwest corner, that is not even in the part of the building that is emitting enormous volumes of smoke. About the same time, you can see an onlooker say "look at the hole in that building!"

Here's another video that shows exterior damage, and not just broken windows. see at about 4:00 minutes in.



Loose change forums agrees. (a few decent photos on this archived site.)

Even more photos showing exterior damage are here.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


I am not expert on engineering, please let me know if you are, so I think that expert testimony on the subject is the way to go. Here is some information on the subject:

www.washingtonsblog.com...



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


Well to start off with you were asking for photographic and video evidence of big fires and visible external damage to WTC7, both of which I have provided to the best of my ability through links and youtube videos. Now that I have done this, you have shifted your request to require expert testimony instead of photographic and video evidence. Tacitly, you have conceded the point about large fires and significant visible exterior damage to Building 7.

You've got every right to ask for other kinds of evidence, but I'd say I've done my bit.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by TheFlash
 


Well to start off with you were asking for photographic and video evidence of big fires and visible external damage to WTC7, both of which I have provided to the best of my ability through links and youtube videos. Now that I have done this, you have shifted your request to require expert testimony instead of photographic and video evidence. Tacitly, you have conceded the point about large fires and significant visible exterior damage to Building 7.

You've got every right to ask for other kinds of evidence, but I'd say I've done my bit.


Not at all. I do not see the extreme damage you refer to in the videos as I never did prior. You have completely ignored all the expert evidence I have provided to support my point. You have not addressed a single bit of it. I rest my case.
edit on 18-7-2013 by TheFlash because: Correct spelling error



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash


Not at all. I do not see the extreme damage you refer to in the videos as I never did prior.


You can lead a horse to water...

You specifically asked for video and photographic evidence of massive fires and exterior damage:


Originally posted by TheFlash
There are many videos of Building 7 just prior to its collapse. Why don't you watch a few of them and point out to us the massive fires and damage that is apparent in those videos? A picture is worth a thousand words after all...


I've provided the evidence that you requested and given you links to both truther and debunker sites that agree on this point. If you claim that you cannot see the damage that is outlined on these sites quite clearly, there is little I can do about that.

Now that I have provided video and photographic evidence, you have not addressed it except to say that you don't see it. Instead, you want to shift the discussion to expert testimony. That is called 'moving the goalposts', my friend.
Link


Logical fallacy
Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.


Now if you want to discuss the evidence and links that I provided at your specific request, feel free to criticize them, but it would be nice if you were more specific than "I don't see it". However, if you want to move the goalposts away from the evidence that you specifically requested and I provided, I hope you will forgive me for not following along as you move the goalposts. After all, you can always ask for some other kind of evidence after I provide evidence addressing your latest request.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I am just curious here - I generally stay out of the 9/11 forums due to the intense emotional (as opposed to rational) conversations, but I foolishly clicked on the thread out of curiosity anyway (my own fault, I know) - but why are we starting, I don't know, about the 50th thread debating the same exact things - point for point on each "side", that are in the dozens of other threads regarding building 7? Doesn't that kinda clog up the forum with unnecessary redundancy?

I.E.:

"Pull it" means intentionally demolish the building...
No, it means pull the people out because of it's imminent collapse.

The building had huge gaping holes in it, was on fire and was structurally compromised and collapsed...
No it doesn't look like that to me.

The towers lost structural integrity due to airliners full of fuel crashing into them and destroying the support columns with the jet fuel burning and weakening it as well....
No, I'm going to ignore the destroyed column thing and be mocking with the "fires melting steel
" comments.

Thread after thread of the same back and forth! It's like no one wants the truth, they just want to make belittling comments to each other.

I will say that the planes crashing into the towers and the Pentagon solely to bring down building 7 is a new one to me...but like I said - I usually stay out of this forum.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


The pot calling the kettle black: an idiom used in a situation where a person is considered guilty of the very thing of which they accuse another. It dates from the time when cooking was done over an open hearth fireplace; both the kettle and the cooking pot would be suspended above it and collect the same amount of soot. The earliest instances date from the early 17th century.

The "goalposts" you describe exist only in your own mind. The issue is whether or not WTC building #7 collapsed due to fire and structural damage or not. If you want to discuss your evidence then point out the time and location in your video where this extreme damage is apparent, and you might also address the fact that the 9/11 Commission report did not agree that structural damage was a significant cause of the collapse.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 

If you want to discuss your evidence then point out the time and location in your video where this extreme damage is apparent, and you might also address the fact that the 9/11 Commission report did not agree that structural damage was a significant cause of the collapse.


I got into this thread to respond to your request for information in this post. I have already pointed out times when damage is visible in the videos I posted in several of my earlier replies. I have also courteously pointed you to two websites where this same damage is discussed in some detail with many photos and much analysis.

1. I am not going to break out photoshop or video editing software to duplicate the analysis that is already performed on the sites that I linked to previously.

2. I am not going to allow you to change the discussion topic to the 9/11 commission report, expert testimony, or anything else. Remember, It was you who brought up the issue of video and photographic evidence. If you don't want to discuss the information that you requested and i provided, so be it. These repeated requests for other evidence and non-response to the evidence presented are the very definition of goalpost-moving.

3. I will not reply further to any of your posts in this thread that do not substantively address the photographic and video evidence that you requested. I quote that request here, in it's entirety:


Originally posted by TheFlash
There are many videos of Building 7 just prior to its collapse. Why don't you watch a few of them and point out to us the massive fires and damage that is apparent in those videos? A picture is worth a thousand words after all...


4. Until you want to discuss the photographic and video evidence of fires and external damage to WTC7, my friend, it's goodbye.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tallcool1
but why are we starting, I don't know, about the 50th thread debating the same exact things - point for point on each "side", that are in the dozens of other threads regarding building 7? Doesn't that kinda clog up the forum with unnecessary redundancy? *1


Yeah, I guess I agree. But 9/11 conspiracy theories haven't changed much in 5-6 years, (my approximate guess). So there's not much new ground to discuss. On the other hand, if ATS had a moderation policy that closed every thread that didn't bring up a new angle, there wouldn't be hardly any new threads, no 9/11 threads would ever make the front page, and discussion would be limited to a few die hards on each side.

Nevertheless, I wish it were the case that people would take a look in the archives to see if this material has been gone over before.


Originally posted by tallcool1
Thread after thread of the same back and forth! It's like no one wants the truth, they just want to make belittling comments to each other.


If you think it's nasty now, check out some threads from a few years ago. 90% of the namecalling and insults are gone. ATS has done a decent job of cleaning it up. I think people take the message, and at least try to keep it civil.

I've actually had a new thread in mind that I believe would be a new angle, but my 'W' score is below 10, so I can't. Maybe I'll write up a draft and ask a Mod to post it.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by Unity_99
Building 7 is the proof without anything else needed that they planned this as an inside job and the media was in on it.


Really?


I rather doubt it.

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department FDNY

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

So plenty of people knew that building 7 was likely to collapse well before the event occurred.
Given the confusion on the day..........it wouldn't be all that surprising if the BBC reporter was given messages of an imminent collapse........ but reported the collapse ahead of time in error.
edit on 12-7-2013 by Logical one because: (no reason given)


So they rigged a 47 building for complete demolition
in the middle of the biggest terrorist attack the USA has had
at ground zero of the attack?
Ooh I like this, do dig, I mean tell, more.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join